User talk:Jessicanajera/sandbox

Peer review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Nothing distracting observed. Things mentioned are relevant. Maybe a more structured layout would be easier to read (eg. headings, etc.), but that's besides the point.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Neutral, scientific.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I appreciate the diligence shown in avoiding biased, non-neutral sources. Good to mention the Witwatersrand Basin, which was agreeably lacking.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Information is cited from good reliable supporting references.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? No bias observed.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? Information/sources used are very recent, 2007+, one is 2018 even. Oldest is from 1993, a report from BC which is fine.

Other comments Good intro on what is planned. There seems to be good communication between the teammates. The idea of giving the reader an idea of time/scale is great, maybe even provide a number for the counter part, uranium placer, etc. Good work.

Peer Review 2 (Lukasz Quinn) – Placer Mining

Everything in your draft is relevant to the article at hand. The information you wish to add appears to not be bias. Nothing is distracting and the layout is easy to read. Checking the citations that you used in your rough draft, I noticed that some of them are fact sheets. As this information is valuable, it would be nice if you could find a paper that also states this in case someone wishes to look further into the topic (Only a suggestion as the fact sheets are totally fine). The sources used are up to date.

I like how you mention where you wish to added the information and why you wish to add it for your Input for Placer Deposits section. The information you wish to add to this section very interesting, good addition.

For Alluvial Diamond Placer Mining, I believe that it is good to use more than one source for that much information. Also, I checked this source: http://www.diamondfacts.org/pdfs/media/media_resources/fact_sheets/Alluvial_Mining_Background.pdf, and did not find where you took this statement from, “The original source of diamonds kimberlites, long "pipes" of lava brought up from the mantle.” Are you getting this from the Kimberlite page? If so I think you should use the citation that is used from the kimberlite page.

If you are looking for things to touch on, I noticed that Placer Deposits lacks citations. Maybe you could add a few?

I also checked your partners work and it seems that your draft plan is coming along. Keep it up and good luck with the final draft.

Lukaszquinn —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]