![]() | Uranium mining in the Bancroft area is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Uranium mining in the Bancroft area has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 5, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Bancroft region is the only place in Canada and one of very few places in the world where uranium has been mined from
pegmatite rock? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Created by CT55555 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC).
Hi User:GeoWriter and with reference to the over quotation tag:
1 - (I'm kinda new and still learning, so this is a sincere question) I did read into the guidance for how much I can quote stuff and I understood for that for technically complicated things, it was appropriate to use longer quotes. With that in mind, do you still think changes are needed?
2 - If it's a "yes" to the above, do you have any tips for how to get someone technically competent to summaries the geology aspects? Sherlock CT55555 deduces you might have some better insight into that than me :-) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reidgreg ( talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
GAN review to be forthcoming. I'd appreciate it if you could hold any edits to the article while I'm reviewing it, which will probably take me a few days. I did a light copy edit of the article. If you disagree with any of my changes, we can discuss it as part of the review. – Reidgreg ( talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that layout is the most apparent issue with the article and one which should be tackled first. It is part of GA criteria 1b, adherence to
MOS:LAYOUT. The specific problem is
MOS:OVERSECTION which states Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.
The article has about 42 body sections for 3260 words of text, with several sections only 1–3 sentences. Compare to the GA
Somerset Coalfield which is of similar length with 20 body sections. Combining some of the sections would allow you to tackle the subject matter in larger chunks, allowing you to make it more concise and coherent. I also feel like some of the material could be reorganized a bit.
Specific suggestions:
Ancient historyis speaking in geologic time, I feel that this section should be combined into the top of section
Geology and mineralogy. (Also, ancient history usually refers to about 5000 years ago, not one billion years.)
Cheddar granite,
Cardiff plutonic complexand
Faraday granite: I feel that these short sections would be better presented as a bulleted list (see 'Children' lists at MOS:EMBED).
Mining history before uranium was discovered (1886 to 1922)is rather long. Maybe change it to 'Early mining efforts'. I would tend to remove the year range from the section header but leave them in for now, they can always be removed later.
Gems and other resources, at least the first and third subsections, could probably be incorporated into the early history. The gold rush part might be best first, as that brought interest, surveying, and infrastructure. (I'll make a specific suggestion under Prose, below.)
Discovery of uranium– I was wondering if some of the survey/discovery background and associated biographical information from the later sections on the mines might fit better here. Generally speaking, when the article first mentions a person or entity, it's good to give their names in full, with linking or acronyms if appropriate, and a bit of information to establish who or what they are. On the other hand, it might be better to keep the mine information together, especially if parts are ultimately going to be moved to other articles (see Breadth and Focus below).
Uranium mining (1952 to 1982)I would suggest expanding the little introductory text before the sections on each mine. The mine sections are fairly long, and in case the reader doesn't want to go through all of that, the introductory part could serve as a summary and also gather any common elements to avoid repetition. I would suggest also incorporating the year range into the text so that it isn't only in the header. Another way might be to have a little table to summarize some of the key information about the mines (perhaps years of operation, the name of the feature they are on [Cheddar, Cardiff, etc.] tons of ore processed, U3O8 produced). For the text, maybe something like: "Uranium mining operations in the Bancroft area were conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. Each of these used underground hard-rock mining methods to access and collect uranium ores from the surrounding granite and gneiss. The mines were:" All of this should be cited.
:::Update: I've gone back to government sources to make sure the uranium ore/oxide states are correct. Note there is contradiction between the academic paper and the numbers in the paper are not credible, the government numbers are credible and official. So I'm confident in the numbers in the table.
CT55555 (
talk)
00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The influence of global economics, politics and local infrastructureThis heading is a bit long. Perhaps change it to 'Economic growth and collapse' or 'Economic effects'? Similarly with the second subsection which might be shortened to 'Decline in demand'.
::Have changed to "economic and political effects". I'm not sure it's the perfect title, but agree it's an improvement. Changed to "decline in demand" also.
CT55555 (
talk)
20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The legacy of uranium mining (1982 to present day)This header is a bit long. The article title is 'Uranium mining in the Bancroft area' so much of this can be assumed. I would shorten it to 'Legacy (1982–present)' and possibly cut the date range later.
I went through the references one by one, and was unable to verify a few things. In some cases the source material is quite long and you may be able to point out the relevant passages for me. In others better sources may be required or the material removed. In particular, the Wikipedia community has placed higher standards on sourcing for medical information than other subjects ( WP:MEDRS). More on that below as I get toward the parts on miners' health.
A.S. Bayne, Report on Wilson Uranium Property..., professional report, used for quotation only.
In Ontario, other than the Bancroft area, uranium is also found in mineable quantities around Elliot Lake and Agnew Lake.I did not spot this in the source.
attempts were made to extract radon from the uranium ore.is covered by page 12: "Various attempts to recover radium from the uranium ore were made in the 1920's and 1930's."
in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalatedalso page 12: "Following World War II, there was considerable interest in the mining of uranium."
Madawaska Mines Limited was formed in 1975 and purchased the mine, as well as the Faraday Mine. Mining operations restarted in 1976 and continued until 1982.I did not spot this in the source.
The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) issued licenses for uranium mines and mills in Canada, and began regulating uranium mines in 1977. As a result of this, mines that closed prior to 1977 (i.e. Bicroft and Dyno Mines) were able to abandon the sites without any regulatory oversight. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine and Greyhawk Mine both resumed mining from 1976 until 1982, so their operation and closure had AECB oversight.also page 12: "Although these mines were licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (a Federal agency), the Atomic Energy Control Board did not regulate the operations of the uranium mining industry directly until 1977. [pp] Consequently, two of the uranium mines (Bicroft and Dyno) which ceased operations in the 1960's were allowed to abandon their mining and milling operations without any effort being made to minimize the radiation hazards emanating from the abandoned wastes. [pp] The other two uranium mines in the Bancroft area (Faraday and Greyhawk) were also abandoned int the 1960's but reactivated in 1976 by Madawaska Mines Ltd. That mining operation ceased in 1982."
As a result of the uranium mining at four mine sites throughout the 1950s, Bancroft experienced rapid population and economic growth.Not verified by this source but will assume it is covered by the offline source also cited; I think a number of the other sources in the article could be used. I would suggest removing this reference from the article.
|page=12
within the citation template. Using {{
rp|12}} right after the ref tag(s) is another simple way, and works better if different citations are using different pages of the same source. A third way, which is more complicated but is more organized if an article uses a multiple pages from multiple text books, is to use {{
sfn}} with separate footnote and reference sections.By 1958, Canada had become one of the world's leading producers of uranium; the $274 million of uranium exports that year represented Canada's most significant mineral export.page 1 (introduction)
is one of only a few places in the world and the only area in Canada where uranium is extracted from pegmatitic rock.Source page 11: "The first deposit of this kind [pegmatitic] to be developed successfully was the Bicroft, near Bancroft, Ontario. Production began there in 1956 followed shortly afterwards by production at the Faraday mine, and later by two others, all in the same area." and page 175 "The Bancroft region is the only part of Canada where uranium is produced from deposits of the general pegmatitic class, and is one of the few such places in the world." However, the source is from 1962 and may be outdated. Suggest changing: only area → first area, or adding a citation from a more recent source.
Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area.page 175
at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property".[6] Between 1929 and 1931[attempts were made to extract...] also page 175
In 1943 [...] the government sent geologists to Bancroft, who concluded at the time that all known uranium despots were unviable due to accessibility, size and uranium concentration.also page 175
1948 saw an increase in private staking of claims for uranium, but due to the difficulties in extracting uranium from lower grade ore, none developed into mines. In 1953 "intelligence prospecting and excellent preliminary explorations" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting.pages 176–177. The quote should be "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" which is applied to all three figures.
After borrowing a Geiger counter from a Mr Robbert Steele in Peterborough, he confirmed radioactivity and immediately started staking land claims. His slow careful staking disadvantaged him→ He brought the samples to Robbert Steele in Peterborough who used a Geiger counter to confirm their radioactivity. The two then formed a partnership and immediately began staking land claims. Their slow and careful staking disadvantaged them ... their work ... they started, etc.
started diamond drilling, mostly to 100 feet, sometimes to 50 feet.I first thought this was depth (which is rather shallow) but it's actually the intervals at which holes were drilled. So: at intervals of 100 feet, sometimes 50 feet.
1957 production or uranium was 405,271 pounds of ore that was 0.0859% U3O8.This differs from page 183 of source "Mill feed for 1957 averaged 0.0859 per cent U3O8, and 405,271 pounds of U3O8 were produced from the Faraday mine in that year." The pound figure is for the refined U3O8; the ore total would have been on the order of 230,000 tons. Suggest: Production in 1957 was 405,271 pounds of U3O8 from ore with a grade of 0.0859%. or Ore mined in 1957 had an average grade of 0.0859%, from which 405,271 pounds of U3O8 was produced.
an ore treatment plant with 1,000 tons-per-day capacity was started in 1956Source, page 184 says the capacity was 1,100 tons per day.
Thompson and Card found exposed rock in a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area.The source, page 186, doesn't say that this was the size of the rock exposure but that this area was found to be radioactive. Suggest: They found exposed rock to be radioactive across a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. or They found a radioactive area of exposed rock which was 60 by 300 feet (18 by 91 m).
A shaft was sunk in 1956 and three levels created.The source says only that they began the shaft in 1956. Suggest: An exploration shaft was begun in 1956 and three levels created.
Ownership subsequently shifted to Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited.I think this is backwards. Ownership changed from Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited to Greyhawk Uranium Mines Limited. Also, the source seems to say that ownership was transferred in 1955... so maybe place this somewhere between the discovery and the shaft.
By 1962 and 1963 the government was buying more than $1,500 million of uranium from Canadian producers for export, but soon thereafter the global supply of uranium increased, prices fell and the government cancelled all contracts to buy.I'm not finding this in the source.
After mining, the uranium ore was treated in acid leaching plants located at the mines. The leaching process produced yellowcake high-grade uranium compounds which were either processed further at the Port Hope refinery or sold to the US government for processing in that country. Processing uranium ore in Bancroft cost $3.00 per ton.I'm not finding this in the source, though I believe at least part of it might have been in the previous source.
Bancroft today is known for gems and mineralogy, and has three abandoned mines and one that is being rehabilitated.This is also covered by the Reynolds source, but Reynolds is 1979 and I'd prefer a more recent source for 'today'.
The success of the mine was due to a combination of factors, and not simply because of Arthur Shore's discovery of uranium. The factors that resulted in economically viable mines were Bancroft's geographical proximity to industrial centers (Port Hope), a good road and rail networkI'm pretty sure that there are some other sources which would cover this, if you could add another citation.
The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium [...] combined with the more efficient extraction occurring in Ontario near Elliot Lake
Former miners have exhibited a twofold increase in lung cancer development likelihood and mortality rate.introduction page iii
A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre at Cancer Care Ontario tracked the health of 28,959 former uranium miners over 21 years and found a two-fold increase in lung cancer mortality and incidence.table 4 page 35
The mine [Bicroft] employed up to 500 people at its peak.
2,284,421 tonnes of tailings remain on site [at Bicroft] in two impoundments.Verified. Page 86 attributes this figure to (Griffith, 1967; Proulx, 1995). I believe that this is good enough for GA, but ideally, for FA, you might want to find the Griffith source which is higher quality. In the references section of the thesis it is identified as Griffith, J.W. (1967). The Uranium Industry – Its History, Technology and Prospects. Mineral Report #12. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The site [Bicroft] is now a wetlands.
Repairs to the decommissioned site, included adding vegetation over the tailings, were completed in 1980. Subsequent upgrades of the dams was completed in the 1990s.Checks from the first and second is sufficient; I didn't spot it in the third, where a page number would be useful.
2019 sampling found radioactive and hazardous contamination in two of several water samples
Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitationNot finding this first part in the source.
"In 1987. MadawaSka concluded in its Annual Report: "No. 2 Tailings Area has been stable for thirty years and is considered to have retuned to the
typical background levels of radiation for the area (MML 1988 2-40}. At that time. the AECB undertook a gamma survey along two transects and the readings of 800 to 900 R/hr demonstrated minimal cover on some parts of the tailings area in 1988, its refusal to grant approval to abandon the property- the AECB referred to Locations on the tailings with high gamma readings and sinkholes indicating ongoing stabilization (MML 1989 Appendix 2). In L989. MML resisted assuming responsibility for remedial work on tailings Area No. 1, citing thirty years of growth of indigenous vegetation and placement of cover only on parts of the tailings am as requested by the AECB. In 1990, Madawaska agreed to undertake
remedial work on the No 2 Tailings area. This was contracted to to Break Consultants who removed existing vegetation and placed cover in 1991. In 1993. Red pine seedn,gs were planted on the site and no further work was planned"
CT55555 ( talk) 01:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Mining operations stopped in 1959.Source does not mention Greyhawk or 1959.
Dyno, Greyhawk, and Madawaska Mines are now managed by E.W.L Management Limited[18] [a subsidiary of Ovintiv[35]]. Bicroft Mine is owned by Barrick Gold; the owners of all legacy tailing sites at former mines are responsible for the ongoing management of the sites.[18]Okay except for Greyhawk, which is not mentioned.
|title=Madawaska Mine (Faraday Mine)
.
it reopened as the Madawaska Mine in 1975 and production continued to 1982. The shaft into the uranium-bearing pegmatite reached a depth of 473 metres (1,552 ft).
200,000 tons of ore, averaging 0.065% U3O8, remain in the ground at Greyhawk Mine.I feel that this should reflect that the mineral reserves are an estimated figure. That's a statistical figure, an estimate based on explorations, but you can't say for certain how much ore at what quality until you take it out of the ground. Suggest preceding it with "An estimated" or " Reserves of".
Faraday Uranium Mines Limited purchased the site in 1962.However, I don't see where this source says anything about "faraday uranium mines" or "1962". It's not needed, so I would suggest removing it unless you find it useful to cite something else in the article.
Located at latitude: 44° 59′ 53.22″, longitude: −78° 9′ 42.15″, the Kemp Uranium Mine, sometimes called the Kemp Property or Kemp Prospect, produced uranium and a world-class specimen of thorite between 1954 and 1955.Good except for the underlined part, which I did not find in the source.
|author=
Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines
? Page numbers would also be useful for the 376-page source, which can be a bit awkward to search. Cited 6 times.
Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore.
Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.For this I changed: attributable → attributed to make it clear that this was in the past, at the time of the study.
Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks.If you don't want to search for a recent medical source, a rephrase would probably suffice.
Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited was the crown company that purchased all uranium oxide in Canada and it entered into contracts with mine owners at fixed prices.page 85
Employment of miners in Bancroft started in 1955, peaked in 1958 at around 1,600 jobs.Is this taken from the chart on page 34? Maybe mark the citation with: 34 chart . It looks about right.
In the 1970s, the scientific community was making connections between uranium mining and silicosis in miners. Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore. Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines. In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.I found some of this from page 18 of source. I did not spot (a) the correlation of the amount of free silica to miners' health risk, or (b) the study of 15,094 people. Page 43 talks a bit about dust levels but I don't see it making that connection. Page 62 footnote 23 mentions "some fifteen thousand" persons with a month exposure in Ontario uranium mines.
Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. Miners' exposure to radiation was not measured before 1958 and exposure limits were not enacted until 1968. Risks to miners at Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines were investigated and the official report of that investigation quotes a miner:I didn't spot this.
"We have been led to believe through the years that the working environment in these mines was safe for us to work in. We have been deceived."Page 77
The aforementioned 1974 study of 15,094 Ontario uranium miners found 81 former miners who died of lung cancer. Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake minersPage 84 states "There is statistical evidence based on samples that for persons who ever worked in the Bancroft area mines the risk of lung cancer has been 2.2 times that for persons who never worked at Bancroft." I'm not sure if that means 2.2 times greater than those who worked at Elliot Lake or 2.2 times greater than the general population. Page 324 states: "it appears that men with any period of employment at Bancroft have experienced a lung cancer risk about twice as great as that for men who have worked only at Elliot Lake." I feel that "appears" isn't strong enough for a conclusion of the study. I'm not sure if the numbers of miners were pulled from the table on that page or elsewhere.
Housing for miners was quickly established around the mines and in nearby Bancroft village, which extended to cover four square miles. Other construction quickly followed, including, two single-men's bunkhouses, a canteen, an eleven-room school, an ice-curling rink, and a recreation center. In 1957 a swimming pool was started.Page 10 of source: "A section of bush was cleared in 1956 to build 200 homes for a new wave of ‘settlers’. In the late 1950’s two ‘suburbs’ were added: Bicroft Heights on Inlet Bay on Paudash Lake where the Bicroft mine executives lived and Dyno Estates near Hwy #28 south of Cardiff for the executives of the Dyno mine [...] When the mines were in operation Cardiff contained 2 bunkhouses for single men, a food preparation center, a large curling rink with 4 surfaces, a legion hall and recreation centre. The municipal office was located in the basement of one of the homes. In 1957 a heated swimming pool was built partly with labour and materials furnished by the mines and partly by volunteer labour. An 11-room school opened in the fall of 1956."
Dyno Mine ran out of uranium ore in 1960.Page 10 of source: "The Dyno mine closed in 1959 when it ran out of ore."
Greyhawk Mines tailings were processed at the mill located at Madawaska Mine, leaving no tailings on site. As a consequence of this, the primary hazards that are regulated are present only at Faraday/Madawaska Mine, and resulted in ongoing environmental monitoring by AECB's successor organization, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).The first sentence is on page 3 point 10 of source. I'd allow the next clause for following it logically. But the underlined part (that the tailings at Madawaska were monitored) needs another source.
After the closure of the mines, the various tailing sites attracted mineral collectors, especially to an annual "gemboree" in which tourists travelled to Bancroft in search of gems and minerals
1978 and 1980, studies found that the natural weathering of the granite and gabbro rocks left at Greyhawk Mine has caused uranium leaching into the aquifer at concentrations ranging between 1.2 to 380 parts per billion, with higher concentrations measured deeper in the water table and in sediments.Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but I did not spot this in the source.
Subsequent inspections in 2020 from nearby locations reported no contamination.Not according to the source: "The study concluded that samples were within accepted government guidelines. Sediment samples indicated “little to no” environment impact and were within screening guidelines. There were just two water samples that were above guidelines. // The study said results were “slightly above” the Ontario provincial drinking water standard (20 micrograms per litre) but were “well within” the range of safety margins incorporated into the development of the standard."
The BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) reported an increase of lung cancer risk; miners who have worked at least 100 months in uranium mines have a twofold increased risk of developing lung cancer.
New sources (11 sources added since 23 January):
The price of uranium dropped from around US$44 per pound in 1979 to US$23.50 per pound in March 1982.. pdf is not searchable, so page numbers would be useful. Found on page 4: "Uranium prices have been in a steep decline since mid-1979 ... of approximately $44.00 US to the current level of $25.00". Please confirm that Ottawa Citizen (above) covers the difference or change to $25.
Yes, I quote from that article "Current world price is about $23.50 per pound in U.S. funds, down from a high of $44 about three years ago" (statement March 22 1982)
CT55555 (
talk)
19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) AGF
During the ice age, in what is the Bancroft area today– This is the first mention of Bancroft in the body, so it should be linked with the province given. Suggest: "in the area of what is now Bancroft, Ontario," (make sure to include the comma after 'Ontario'). Also, suggest changing: ice age → most recent ice age and pipe a link to Wisconsin glaciation.
The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments→ Volcanic eruptions had spouted through the sediments
recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite, rich in iron and other dark minerals.Which of the examples does 'rich in iron and other dark minerals' apply to? This could be rephrased to clarify.
The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite producing iron and other dark minerals. I believe that clears up the meaning for me. If I have this right, producing opens a new clause which applies to all that came before it. Limestone is sedimentary and not a gneiss, so the list are not examples but other contents of the 'layers' along with the gneisses. Here are a couple ways I'd rephrase it:
The ore mined in Faraday Township (i.e. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine, and Greyhawk Mine) is between 992 million and 1088 million years old. The Cardiff rock, sometimes called the Silver Crater or Fission property in earlier writing (i.e. Dyno Mine, Bicroft Mine) is 1,000 million years old.I feel that the distinction between 992 million and 1088 million years won't have much meaning for most readers, and that this whole part could be summarized as "Uranium ores in these structures are about 1,000 million years old." Add that to the end of the preceding paragraph. (This would also avoid the problem of having to define the mines at this early stage of the article.) If you feel that it's important to keep this information, it can be relegated to a footnote with {{ efn}} and a Notes section before the references which gathers footnotes with {{ notelist}}.
In Canada 99% of known uranium occurrences and 93% of properties producing uranium are on the Canadian Shield, almost all on the western and southern edges of it.Add a comma after the first 'Canada' and link Canadian Shield. If you don't feel it's too much of a stretch, you could also pipe 'properties producing uranium' to uranium mining in Canada.
Located northeast of the Cheddar granite,I think this can be removed, particularly in list form, as the list introduction already states they are ordered southwest to northeast.
Located northeast of the two other granitic complexes,
Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area.It might at first appear to the reader that uranium is the first element of an inline list 'uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals'. There's also some ambiguity with the discovery of uranium as an atomic element (which happened much earlier). Suggest removing the first clause altogether as a rephrase would get a bit wordy. Actually, let me take a run at the whole combined section:
Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff in 1922 by W. M. RichardsonI think keep the full " Cardiff, Ontario," or possibly " Cardiff, southwest of Bancroft," – or alternatively the Cardiff link could be given with the Cardiff plutonic complex.
In 1943,[6] in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalated,[4]The war was still ongoing in 1943, so I don't think we can say "aftermath". Suggest: during World War II. Also, I would put a sentence break after 'escalated'.
Burns, Steele and Shore were three of one hundred area prospects were established in the Bancroft area between 1953 and 1956.Not quite sure what this is saying. Were they 3 of 100 uranium prospectors, or were their prospects 3 of 100 claims made?
a well studied amateur prospector from PeterboroughNeed a comma after Peterborough.
found deposits near Cardiff township, 10 miles southwest of Bancroft, near Paudash Lake.Can we rearrange to avoid the two 'near's? Suggest: found deposits 10 miles (16 km) southwest of Bancroft, near Cardiff township and Paudash Lake.
In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada, Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the Geological Survey of Canada.Was looking to rephrase this but now I'm not certain it's relevant. He can be assumed to be interested in minerals and rocks, it later talks of his property claims, and the book doesn't seem important. Perhaps remove this?
a Mr Robbert Steele in PeterboroughI think just 'Robbert Steele'.
what the Geological Survey officeIf this is first occurrence, link and provide acronym: Geological Survey office → Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)
a subsidiary of Macassa Mines Limited formed in 1953. They discovered uranium north of the original site.Need a comma after 'Limited' and suggest joining the sentences: formed in 1953 and discovered
The mine employed up to 500 people at its peak.[14]I feel that this would be better worked into the paragraph which follows it, which summarizes overall activity of the mine.
Further drilling the following year identified more uranium up to 500 feet undergroundSuggest: Further drilling the following year identified additional deposits to a depth of 500 feet.
Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitation.→ In 2015, inspections found improper surface protection of the tailings and the site has been undergoing rehabilitation. (This could probably be incorporated into the end of the Madawaska Mine paragraph.)
Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.It does say 'generally' though, and it's a minor issue. I'll allow it as there is potential to expand it.
At the Faraday and Madawaska mines, lens-shaped bodies of ore occurIn an earlier section, the term "lenticular dykes" is used (lenticular meaning 'lens-shaped'). It'd probably be best to use one form throughout the article. If you think it needs explanation, it can be defined in a parenthetic on the first occurrence, though I feel the link to lens (geology) is sufficient.
After mining, the uranium ore was treatedI feel that this paragraph should be moved up from geology to mining operations for Greyhawk. Some of the short paragraphs could also be combined.
The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium (specifically the cancellation of a contract to buy by Agip[28]) combined with the more efficient extractionDon't need both combination and combined. Suggest: A global decline in demand
closed the remaining mines in 1964 destroying the local economy→ resulted in the closure of the remaining mines at Bancroft in 1964, jeopardizing the local economy.
Local catholic priest Rev. Henry Maloney, whose two brothers were former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney, and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney, led the community to demand support from the Government of Ontario and Government of Canada to extend the contracts for buying uranium. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community enough time to plan for the closure.→ Local catholic priest Henry Joseph Maloney (brother of former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney) rallied the community to demand support from the provincial and federal government. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community time to plan for the closure.
Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines.The mines around Bancroft had a free silica rate of 5–15%, presenting some risk but much less than at the uranium mines around Elliot Lake which produced ore with 60–70% free silica.
In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.→ In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in the province's uranium mines for at least one month between 1955 and 1974. 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, 1 of which was attributable to working a Bancroft mine while the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.
Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners.→ This was 36 more deaths than expected from provincial lung cancer rates, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners.
A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre→ A study report for the CNSC undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre
Making another copy-edit pass of the prose:
while others understood to be 1,200 million years old→ while others are understood
In Canada, 99% of known uranium occurrencesThis single-sentence paragraph should be combined with other material, probably in the paragraph which follows as it mentions other global locations (while the rest of the section is specific to Bancroft).
Bancroft, known as the "Mineral Capital of Canada"[11] and is only of only five major locations→ Canada",[11] is one of five major locations
from intrusive rocks, the others beingI feel like you need stronger separation here than a comma: either a semicolon or a dash.
Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff, Ontario, in 1922 by prospector W. M. Richardson[1] at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property"[4]: 175 located two kilometers east of Wilberforce on the property know as lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9]Suggest a sentence break after Richardson and then: His find was first called the Richardson deposit, and later the Fission property,[4]:175 and was located two kilometres east of Wilberforce on lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9] (Note Canadian spelling of kilometre.)
In 1953 "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur H. Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting.[4]:176–77I feel it's cramming too many ideas together and should be split topically. Here is one way of doing it: In 1953, "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns, R. J. Steele and Arthur H. Shore led successful prospecting of the area. The former two discovered the Central Lake deposits, which were developed into Bicroft Mine, while Shore's prospect became the Faraday Mine.[4]:176–77
In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the GSC.doesn't add anything and should be removed. Hopefully you've addressed this above.
their work paid off and he started miningI think they started mining, as they were partners.
also known as the Tripp property and also known as the Montgomery propertyI think you can remove the second 'also known as'.
According to a 2012 study published in NatureItalicize the name of the journal.
Since four of the five mines have their own articles, ideally we'd want to migrate a lot of the information from those sections to the articles on the mines, and have the sections in this article tight summaries relevant to the overall subject. However, I feel that's beyond the scope of the GA criteria.
For Greyhawk Mines, I feel that it could include from page 186 of Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium that both the tonnage and grade of ore were below that indicated by surface drilling, which would help toward explaining why the mine shut down after only two years. Suggest something like: Operations uncovered no high-grade ore deposits, leaving the average grade below that of other Bancroft mines. The tonnage of ore was 30% less than feasibility estimates. – I think if you add that right before "Mining operations stopped" readers can draw a likely conclusion without a source explicitly stating it.
Mining operations stopped in 1959up to the end of the preceding paragraph, possibly with a minor rephrase.
The source Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report mentions, on page 3, four other mines in the Bancroft area: Blue Rock, Cavendish, Nu-Age and Tory-Hill. These were probably minor mines, and may not have produced notable quantities of uranium. I feel that it would be worth investigating for sources on these, and make small expansions if reliable secondary sources can be found. (If RSS can't be easily found, then the GA criteria won't require coverage.) Cursory search:
I was wondering if it might be worthwhile to note somewhere that the mines which reopened in the 1970s did so in the context of the
1970s energy crisis? Perhaps this could go just before However, by the 1980s, uranium demand was again down
You wouldn't be able to state a causal relationship without a source, but you could state that there was an energy crisis and then state that some mines reopened, and readers can make the connection themselves. (I feel that there was an energy crisis in the 1970s is readily verifiable and its existence as an event doesn't need a citation.)
Decline, growth and decline
. Alternatively, Response to global demand
could work, but it seems a bit like a teaser, making you read to see what the demand and response were. It doesn't quite fit a boom-bust
business cycle.Regarding the gem lists and marble buildings: I recently had a spirited discussion with a couple editors about inclusion of trivia. 'Trivia' is a bit of a trigger word on Wikipedia, like 'vandalism', and has been used for the wholesale removal of content. However, the importance of information is relative and subjective, and Wikipedia includes lots of notable trivia. When considering inclusion, a good gauge is the information's relevance to the article topic. My first inclination was that the marble floors of the ROM and the gemstone list were at least once-removed from 'uranium mining in Bancroft', and weren't necessary to a summary of the article subject. However, I don't think it's that bad of a thing to have at the end of a section, and goes a way to including some of the galleries. I won't hold up the review on it.
Some minor tone issues covered elsewhere in review
Although there were some recent-ish interest in renewed mineral explorations, no new uranium mining activity has been initiated and it is a mature topic which with no content disputes detected in the article.
All 23 images tagged with free or creative commons licences. The interactive map is generated through Wikimedia maps and OpenStreetMap, so I assume it is not a problem.
GA criteria 6b requires media [to be] relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
A hair-like cluster of acicular uranophane crystals perched nicely in the middle of a matrix plate, mined from Madawaska Mine.Recommend removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('nicely' being a subjective opinion).
Two sharp, brown, octohedral uraninite crystals to 0.9 cm aesthetically perched on red-brown orthoclase matrix from BancroftSuggest removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('aesthetically' being subjective) and add a comma before 'from'.
Emplaced in orange calcite is a lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite, 0.7 cm across which has been twinned and penetrated by another uraninite crystal. From Bancroft.→ A lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite on orange calcite, from Bancroft
An Ontario miner pushes a cart of radium ore c. 1930The file page says this is from the Northwest Territories.
More captions:
You experimented with {{ Multiple image}} in Faraday/Mining operations. Unfortunately, the template is fixed-width and when you have four images side-by-side it can break the sides of the margins on smaller screens (try narrowing your browser window to see). I'd suggest reducing the image size, putting them 2×2 instead of four in a row, or go back to a gallery (which most browsers will automatically adjust for window width).
Doing another check for new images.
Even more new images:
Yet another new image:
Another new image: [:File:Uraninite in Pegmatite (48002874171).jpg]] – confirmed CCbySA2.0
Since we're pretty sure about the article content at this point, I think we can start tackling the lead. I'd like the lead to be in very good shape, as it's the first thing people read – and tends to be the first thing people edit as well.
Assuming everything that appears in the lead is also in the body of the article (which it generally should be), inline citations are only required for quotations and material likely to be challenged.
The discovery of uranium near Bancroft resulted in what was described by engineer A. S. Bayne in a 1977 report as the "greatest uranium prospecting rush in the world"Good for quote, but the report says that the prospecting rush was triggered in "1953, when Centre Lake Uranium Mines Ltd. started underground development".
I'm going to go ahead and try a rewrite of the lead for MOS:LEAD compliance (GA criteria 1b). I'll be aiming for easy to read prose which clearly and succinctly serves as a summary of and an introduction to the article, organized in two or three paragraphs. Again, the GA Somerset Coalfield may serve as an example.
What do you think?
Please ignore this until the points above are addressed. Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might eventually want to improve:
Reference tidying is about organizing it a bit so it's easier to work with. Like making a uniform system of names for the references (rather than the auto-generated ":1" types). Authorsurname-year or institution-year are often a good way to go, or maybe use the title or purpose, just so long as they aren't easily confused.
Another big part is using the appropriate
citation template. If you're researching via the Internet, most of your sources will have websites but often there will be a better template to use than {{
cite web}}. I've mentioned a couple where cite journal is better. For
GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink, it'd be better to use {{
cite report}} with the url
https://gac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GAC-MAC-2013-program-with-abstracts.pdf and page=157 (where the information is at the bottom). When you do use cite web, note the difference between |website=
and |publisher=
. If it's an online news source or magazine, use website; if it's an institution like a government website, use publisher. (Hint: website applies italics while publisher does not). Read through the parameter use in the documentation of the citation template and make sure you're using them appropriately.
Dates: When there are multiple valid styles, MOS generally says to go with the 'established style' of the article – meaning that it's your choice as the article's creator and primary author. Sometimes the established style will be changed with major rewrites, such as here at a GA review, or otherwise after considered discussion. Because the article is about Canada, we will generally use Canadian English and metric. Other styles like date formats and whether to use serial commas are up to you. I personally like dmy dates with the month written out. These are non-ambiguous, and they avoid the MOS:DATECOMMA issue that inevitably comes up with mdy dates.
At the FA level, images should have |alt=
text for accessibility. While the caption explains context and relates the image to the text, the alt text describes the image itself. (more at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images).
For the article map(s), consider placing a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. There are all kinds of specialist editors on Wikipedia, and these folks know everything about maps. They can tidy up that map as a scalable SVG, colourize it, add or remove features, and advise on any copyright issues (probably not a problem; you can copyright a map but you can't copyright the information on the map, so when they make a new one it will have a free license regardless of the original). Just make sure you know exactly what you want and clearly state your request (with sources as applicable).
You can post any general questions or discussion here. If you have any questions about the specific points above or want to discuss them (and feel free to disagree with me), please post such following the appropriate bullet point above. Try to preserve the list formatting and talk page conventions to keep it tidy and so it's easy to mark our progress. When you've finished making changes to the article, please let me know here and I'll check through your changes. Reviewers usually give 7 days for changes to be made to meet the criteria, but I'll probably go as long as a month since this is your first GAN and the review is fairly long. – Reidgreg ( talk) 17:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the extra work you've done on the article, finding new images and sources where needed.
I could not find some of your changes in the article. Is it possible that they didn't save? I marked these with Not done.
I made some non-controversial direct edits to the article: A bit of tidying, some page numbers (not everywhere), convert templates, and I played around with one table a bit. I hope I didn't introduce any errors.
I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few things but I'm losing a bit of focus over some of this and best pass it back to you. I think we're getting pretty close. I've suggested a few things, notably a rewrite for the lead. – Reidgreg ( talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Reidgreg, CT55555, where does this nomination stand? The most recent edits to the article were made on 9 March, will more be made soon? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This article recently failed to reach Featured Article status ( archive link), mainly due to disagreements about the reliability of the citations from a book by Nila Reynolds. Unfortunately, the discussion about that got cut short after I tried to convince @ Hog Farm and @ Nikkimaria that she is a reliable historian. I'll restate (and slightly refine) my argument again here, hoping to persuade. Also inviting comment from others who didn't comment before it was close @ Reidgreg. Note: there was other minor points on which caused others to not support, mainly the reliability of sources used of minor facts, I don't disagree and will delete those facts if I succeed in persuading others about Reynolds being reliable. My argument:
CT55555( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Uranium mining in the Bancroft area is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Uranium mining in the Bancroft area has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 5, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Bancroft region is the only place in Canada and one of very few places in the world where uranium has been mined from
pegmatite rock? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
01:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Created by CT55555 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC).
Hi User:GeoWriter and with reference to the over quotation tag:
1 - (I'm kinda new and still learning, so this is a sincere question) I did read into the guidance for how much I can quote stuff and I understood for that for technically complicated things, it was appropriate to use longer quotes. With that in mind, do you still think changes are needed?
2 - If it's a "yes" to the above, do you have any tips for how to get someone technically competent to summaries the geology aspects? Sherlock CT55555 deduces you might have some better insight into that than me :-) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reidgreg ( talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
GAN review to be forthcoming. I'd appreciate it if you could hold any edits to the article while I'm reviewing it, which will probably take me a few days. I did a light copy edit of the article. If you disagree with any of my changes, we can discuss it as part of the review. – Reidgreg ( talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that layout is the most apparent issue with the article and one which should be tackled first. It is part of GA criteria 1b, adherence to
MOS:LAYOUT. The specific problem is
MOS:OVERSECTION which states Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.
The article has about 42 body sections for 3260 words of text, with several sections only 1–3 sentences. Compare to the GA
Somerset Coalfield which is of similar length with 20 body sections. Combining some of the sections would allow you to tackle the subject matter in larger chunks, allowing you to make it more concise and coherent. I also feel like some of the material could be reorganized a bit.
Specific suggestions:
Ancient historyis speaking in geologic time, I feel that this section should be combined into the top of section
Geology and mineralogy. (Also, ancient history usually refers to about 5000 years ago, not one billion years.)
Cheddar granite,
Cardiff plutonic complexand
Faraday granite: I feel that these short sections would be better presented as a bulleted list (see 'Children' lists at MOS:EMBED).
Mining history before uranium was discovered (1886 to 1922)is rather long. Maybe change it to 'Early mining efforts'. I would tend to remove the year range from the section header but leave them in for now, they can always be removed later.
Gems and other resources, at least the first and third subsections, could probably be incorporated into the early history. The gold rush part might be best first, as that brought interest, surveying, and infrastructure. (I'll make a specific suggestion under Prose, below.)
Discovery of uranium– I was wondering if some of the survey/discovery background and associated biographical information from the later sections on the mines might fit better here. Generally speaking, when the article first mentions a person or entity, it's good to give their names in full, with linking or acronyms if appropriate, and a bit of information to establish who or what they are. On the other hand, it might be better to keep the mine information together, especially if parts are ultimately going to be moved to other articles (see Breadth and Focus below).
Uranium mining (1952 to 1982)I would suggest expanding the little introductory text before the sections on each mine. The mine sections are fairly long, and in case the reader doesn't want to go through all of that, the introductory part could serve as a summary and also gather any common elements to avoid repetition. I would suggest also incorporating the year range into the text so that it isn't only in the header. Another way might be to have a little table to summarize some of the key information about the mines (perhaps years of operation, the name of the feature they are on [Cheddar, Cardiff, etc.] tons of ore processed, U3O8 produced). For the text, maybe something like: "Uranium mining operations in the Bancroft area were conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. Each of these used underground hard-rock mining methods to access and collect uranium ores from the surrounding granite and gneiss. The mines were:" All of this should be cited.
:::Update: I've gone back to government sources to make sure the uranium ore/oxide states are correct. Note there is contradiction between the academic paper and the numbers in the paper are not credible, the government numbers are credible and official. So I'm confident in the numbers in the table.
CT55555 (
talk)
00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The influence of global economics, politics and local infrastructureThis heading is a bit long. Perhaps change it to 'Economic growth and collapse' or 'Economic effects'? Similarly with the second subsection which might be shortened to 'Decline in demand'.
::Have changed to "economic and political effects". I'm not sure it's the perfect title, but agree it's an improvement. Changed to "decline in demand" also.
CT55555 (
talk)
20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The legacy of uranium mining (1982 to present day)This header is a bit long. The article title is 'Uranium mining in the Bancroft area' so much of this can be assumed. I would shorten it to 'Legacy (1982–present)' and possibly cut the date range later.
I went through the references one by one, and was unable to verify a few things. In some cases the source material is quite long and you may be able to point out the relevant passages for me. In others better sources may be required or the material removed. In particular, the Wikipedia community has placed higher standards on sourcing for medical information than other subjects ( WP:MEDRS). More on that below as I get toward the parts on miners' health.
A.S. Bayne, Report on Wilson Uranium Property..., professional report, used for quotation only.
In Ontario, other than the Bancroft area, uranium is also found in mineable quantities around Elliot Lake and Agnew Lake.I did not spot this in the source.
attempts were made to extract radon from the uranium ore.is covered by page 12: "Various attempts to recover radium from the uranium ore were made in the 1920's and 1930's."
in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalatedalso page 12: "Following World War II, there was considerable interest in the mining of uranium."
Madawaska Mines Limited was formed in 1975 and purchased the mine, as well as the Faraday Mine. Mining operations restarted in 1976 and continued until 1982.I did not spot this in the source.
The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) issued licenses for uranium mines and mills in Canada, and began regulating uranium mines in 1977. As a result of this, mines that closed prior to 1977 (i.e. Bicroft and Dyno Mines) were able to abandon the sites without any regulatory oversight. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine and Greyhawk Mine both resumed mining from 1976 until 1982, so their operation and closure had AECB oversight.also page 12: "Although these mines were licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (a Federal agency), the Atomic Energy Control Board did not regulate the operations of the uranium mining industry directly until 1977. [pp] Consequently, two of the uranium mines (Bicroft and Dyno) which ceased operations in the 1960's were allowed to abandon their mining and milling operations without any effort being made to minimize the radiation hazards emanating from the abandoned wastes. [pp] The other two uranium mines in the Bancroft area (Faraday and Greyhawk) were also abandoned int the 1960's but reactivated in 1976 by Madawaska Mines Ltd. That mining operation ceased in 1982."
As a result of the uranium mining at four mine sites throughout the 1950s, Bancroft experienced rapid population and economic growth.Not verified by this source but will assume it is covered by the offline source also cited; I think a number of the other sources in the article could be used. I would suggest removing this reference from the article.
|page=12
within the citation template. Using {{
rp|12}} right after the ref tag(s) is another simple way, and works better if different citations are using different pages of the same source. A third way, which is more complicated but is more organized if an article uses a multiple pages from multiple text books, is to use {{
sfn}} with separate footnote and reference sections.By 1958, Canada had become one of the world's leading producers of uranium; the $274 million of uranium exports that year represented Canada's most significant mineral export.page 1 (introduction)
is one of only a few places in the world and the only area in Canada where uranium is extracted from pegmatitic rock.Source page 11: "The first deposit of this kind [pegmatitic] to be developed successfully was the Bicroft, near Bancroft, Ontario. Production began there in 1956 followed shortly afterwards by production at the Faraday mine, and later by two others, all in the same area." and page 175 "The Bancroft region is the only part of Canada where uranium is produced from deposits of the general pegmatitic class, and is one of the few such places in the world." However, the source is from 1962 and may be outdated. Suggest changing: only area → first area, or adding a citation from a more recent source.
Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area.page 175
at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property".[6] Between 1929 and 1931[attempts were made to extract...] also page 175
In 1943 [...] the government sent geologists to Bancroft, who concluded at the time that all known uranium despots were unviable due to accessibility, size and uranium concentration.also page 175
1948 saw an increase in private staking of claims for uranium, but due to the difficulties in extracting uranium from lower grade ore, none developed into mines. In 1953 "intelligence prospecting and excellent preliminary explorations" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting.pages 176–177. The quote should be "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" which is applied to all three figures.
After borrowing a Geiger counter from a Mr Robbert Steele in Peterborough, he confirmed radioactivity and immediately started staking land claims. His slow careful staking disadvantaged him→ He brought the samples to Robbert Steele in Peterborough who used a Geiger counter to confirm their radioactivity. The two then formed a partnership and immediately began staking land claims. Their slow and careful staking disadvantaged them ... their work ... they started, etc.
started diamond drilling, mostly to 100 feet, sometimes to 50 feet.I first thought this was depth (which is rather shallow) but it's actually the intervals at which holes were drilled. So: at intervals of 100 feet, sometimes 50 feet.
1957 production or uranium was 405,271 pounds of ore that was 0.0859% U3O8.This differs from page 183 of source "Mill feed for 1957 averaged 0.0859 per cent U3O8, and 405,271 pounds of U3O8 were produced from the Faraday mine in that year." The pound figure is for the refined U3O8; the ore total would have been on the order of 230,000 tons. Suggest: Production in 1957 was 405,271 pounds of U3O8 from ore with a grade of 0.0859%. or Ore mined in 1957 had an average grade of 0.0859%, from which 405,271 pounds of U3O8 was produced.
an ore treatment plant with 1,000 tons-per-day capacity was started in 1956Source, page 184 says the capacity was 1,100 tons per day.
Thompson and Card found exposed rock in a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area.The source, page 186, doesn't say that this was the size of the rock exposure but that this area was found to be radioactive. Suggest: They found exposed rock to be radioactive across a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. or They found a radioactive area of exposed rock which was 60 by 300 feet (18 by 91 m).
A shaft was sunk in 1956 and three levels created.The source says only that they began the shaft in 1956. Suggest: An exploration shaft was begun in 1956 and three levels created.
Ownership subsequently shifted to Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited.I think this is backwards. Ownership changed from Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited to Greyhawk Uranium Mines Limited. Also, the source seems to say that ownership was transferred in 1955... so maybe place this somewhere between the discovery and the shaft.
By 1962 and 1963 the government was buying more than $1,500 million of uranium from Canadian producers for export, but soon thereafter the global supply of uranium increased, prices fell and the government cancelled all contracts to buy.I'm not finding this in the source.
After mining, the uranium ore was treated in acid leaching plants located at the mines. The leaching process produced yellowcake high-grade uranium compounds which were either processed further at the Port Hope refinery or sold to the US government for processing in that country. Processing uranium ore in Bancroft cost $3.00 per ton.I'm not finding this in the source, though I believe at least part of it might have been in the previous source.
Bancroft today is known for gems and mineralogy, and has three abandoned mines and one that is being rehabilitated.This is also covered by the Reynolds source, but Reynolds is 1979 and I'd prefer a more recent source for 'today'.
The success of the mine was due to a combination of factors, and not simply because of Arthur Shore's discovery of uranium. The factors that resulted in economically viable mines were Bancroft's geographical proximity to industrial centers (Port Hope), a good road and rail networkI'm pretty sure that there are some other sources which would cover this, if you could add another citation.
The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium [...] combined with the more efficient extraction occurring in Ontario near Elliot Lake
Former miners have exhibited a twofold increase in lung cancer development likelihood and mortality rate.introduction page iii
A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre at Cancer Care Ontario tracked the health of 28,959 former uranium miners over 21 years and found a two-fold increase in lung cancer mortality and incidence.table 4 page 35
The mine [Bicroft] employed up to 500 people at its peak.
2,284,421 tonnes of tailings remain on site [at Bicroft] in two impoundments.Verified. Page 86 attributes this figure to (Griffith, 1967; Proulx, 1995). I believe that this is good enough for GA, but ideally, for FA, you might want to find the Griffith source which is higher quality. In the references section of the thesis it is identified as Griffith, J.W. (1967). The Uranium Industry – Its History, Technology and Prospects. Mineral Report #12. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The site [Bicroft] is now a wetlands.
Repairs to the decommissioned site, included adding vegetation over the tailings, were completed in 1980. Subsequent upgrades of the dams was completed in the 1990s.Checks from the first and second is sufficient; I didn't spot it in the third, where a page number would be useful.
2019 sampling found radioactive and hazardous contamination in two of several water samples
Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitationNot finding this first part in the source.
"In 1987. MadawaSka concluded in its Annual Report: "No. 2 Tailings Area has been stable for thirty years and is considered to have retuned to the
typical background levels of radiation for the area (MML 1988 2-40}. At that time. the AECB undertook a gamma survey along two transects and the readings of 800 to 900 R/hr demonstrated minimal cover on some parts of the tailings area in 1988, its refusal to grant approval to abandon the property- the AECB referred to Locations on the tailings with high gamma readings and sinkholes indicating ongoing stabilization (MML 1989 Appendix 2). In L989. MML resisted assuming responsibility for remedial work on tailings Area No. 1, citing thirty years of growth of indigenous vegetation and placement of cover only on parts of the tailings am as requested by the AECB. In 1990, Madawaska agreed to undertake
remedial work on the No 2 Tailings area. This was contracted to to Break Consultants who removed existing vegetation and placed cover in 1991. In 1993. Red pine seedn,gs were planted on the site and no further work was planned"
CT55555 ( talk) 01:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Mining operations stopped in 1959.Source does not mention Greyhawk or 1959.
Dyno, Greyhawk, and Madawaska Mines are now managed by E.W.L Management Limited[18] [a subsidiary of Ovintiv[35]]. Bicroft Mine is owned by Barrick Gold; the owners of all legacy tailing sites at former mines are responsible for the ongoing management of the sites.[18]Okay except for Greyhawk, which is not mentioned.
|title=Madawaska Mine (Faraday Mine)
.
it reopened as the Madawaska Mine in 1975 and production continued to 1982. The shaft into the uranium-bearing pegmatite reached a depth of 473 metres (1,552 ft).
200,000 tons of ore, averaging 0.065% U3O8, remain in the ground at Greyhawk Mine.I feel that this should reflect that the mineral reserves are an estimated figure. That's a statistical figure, an estimate based on explorations, but you can't say for certain how much ore at what quality until you take it out of the ground. Suggest preceding it with "An estimated" or " Reserves of".
Faraday Uranium Mines Limited purchased the site in 1962.However, I don't see where this source says anything about "faraday uranium mines" or "1962". It's not needed, so I would suggest removing it unless you find it useful to cite something else in the article.
Located at latitude: 44° 59′ 53.22″, longitude: −78° 9′ 42.15″, the Kemp Uranium Mine, sometimes called the Kemp Property or Kemp Prospect, produced uranium and a world-class specimen of thorite between 1954 and 1955.Good except for the underlined part, which I did not find in the source.
|author=
Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines
? Page numbers would also be useful for the 376-page source, which can be a bit awkward to search. Cited 6 times.
Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore.
Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.For this I changed: attributable → attributed to make it clear that this was in the past, at the time of the study.
Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks.If you don't want to search for a recent medical source, a rephrase would probably suffice.
Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited was the crown company that purchased all uranium oxide in Canada and it entered into contracts with mine owners at fixed prices.page 85
Employment of miners in Bancroft started in 1955, peaked in 1958 at around 1,600 jobs.Is this taken from the chart on page 34? Maybe mark the citation with: 34 chart . It looks about right.
In the 1970s, the scientific community was making connections between uranium mining and silicosis in miners. Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore. Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines. In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.I found some of this from page 18 of source. I did not spot (a) the correlation of the amount of free silica to miners' health risk, or (b) the study of 15,094 people. Page 43 talks a bit about dust levels but I don't see it making that connection. Page 62 footnote 23 mentions "some fifteen thousand" persons with a month exposure in Ontario uranium mines.
Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. Miners' exposure to radiation was not measured before 1958 and exposure limits were not enacted until 1968. Risks to miners at Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines were investigated and the official report of that investigation quotes a miner:I didn't spot this.
"We have been led to believe through the years that the working environment in these mines was safe for us to work in. We have been deceived."Page 77
The aforementioned 1974 study of 15,094 Ontario uranium miners found 81 former miners who died of lung cancer. Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake minersPage 84 states "There is statistical evidence based on samples that for persons who ever worked in the Bancroft area mines the risk of lung cancer has been 2.2 times that for persons who never worked at Bancroft." I'm not sure if that means 2.2 times greater than those who worked at Elliot Lake or 2.2 times greater than the general population. Page 324 states: "it appears that men with any period of employment at Bancroft have experienced a lung cancer risk about twice as great as that for men who have worked only at Elliot Lake." I feel that "appears" isn't strong enough for a conclusion of the study. I'm not sure if the numbers of miners were pulled from the table on that page or elsewhere.
Housing for miners was quickly established around the mines and in nearby Bancroft village, which extended to cover four square miles. Other construction quickly followed, including, two single-men's bunkhouses, a canteen, an eleven-room school, an ice-curling rink, and a recreation center. In 1957 a swimming pool was started.Page 10 of source: "A section of bush was cleared in 1956 to build 200 homes for a new wave of ‘settlers’. In the late 1950’s two ‘suburbs’ were added: Bicroft Heights on Inlet Bay on Paudash Lake where the Bicroft mine executives lived and Dyno Estates near Hwy #28 south of Cardiff for the executives of the Dyno mine [...] When the mines were in operation Cardiff contained 2 bunkhouses for single men, a food preparation center, a large curling rink with 4 surfaces, a legion hall and recreation centre. The municipal office was located in the basement of one of the homes. In 1957 a heated swimming pool was built partly with labour and materials furnished by the mines and partly by volunteer labour. An 11-room school opened in the fall of 1956."
Dyno Mine ran out of uranium ore in 1960.Page 10 of source: "The Dyno mine closed in 1959 when it ran out of ore."
Greyhawk Mines tailings were processed at the mill located at Madawaska Mine, leaving no tailings on site. As a consequence of this, the primary hazards that are regulated are present only at Faraday/Madawaska Mine, and resulted in ongoing environmental monitoring by AECB's successor organization, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).The first sentence is on page 3 point 10 of source. I'd allow the next clause for following it logically. But the underlined part (that the tailings at Madawaska were monitored) needs another source.
After the closure of the mines, the various tailing sites attracted mineral collectors, especially to an annual "gemboree" in which tourists travelled to Bancroft in search of gems and minerals
1978 and 1980, studies found that the natural weathering of the granite and gabbro rocks left at Greyhawk Mine has caused uranium leaching into the aquifer at concentrations ranging between 1.2 to 380 parts per billion, with higher concentrations measured deeper in the water table and in sediments.Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but I did not spot this in the source.
Subsequent inspections in 2020 from nearby locations reported no contamination.Not according to the source: "The study concluded that samples were within accepted government guidelines. Sediment samples indicated “little to no” environment impact and were within screening guidelines. There were just two water samples that were above guidelines. // The study said results were “slightly above” the Ontario provincial drinking water standard (20 micrograms per litre) but were “well within” the range of safety margins incorporated into the development of the standard."
The BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) reported an increase of lung cancer risk; miners who have worked at least 100 months in uranium mines have a twofold increased risk of developing lung cancer.
New sources (11 sources added since 23 January):
The price of uranium dropped from around US$44 per pound in 1979 to US$23.50 per pound in March 1982.. pdf is not searchable, so page numbers would be useful. Found on page 4: "Uranium prices have been in a steep decline since mid-1979 ... of approximately $44.00 US to the current level of $25.00". Please confirm that Ottawa Citizen (above) covers the difference or change to $25.
Yes, I quote from that article "Current world price is about $23.50 per pound in U.S. funds, down from a high of $44 about three years ago" (statement March 22 1982)
CT55555 (
talk)
19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) AGF
During the ice age, in what is the Bancroft area today– This is the first mention of Bancroft in the body, so it should be linked with the province given. Suggest: "in the area of what is now Bancroft, Ontario," (make sure to include the comma after 'Ontario'). Also, suggest changing: ice age → most recent ice age and pipe a link to Wisconsin glaciation.
The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments→ Volcanic eruptions had spouted through the sediments
recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite, rich in iron and other dark minerals.Which of the examples does 'rich in iron and other dark minerals' apply to? This could be rephrased to clarify.
The volcanic eruptions spouted through sediments recrystallizing them into layers of banded gneisses including limestone, graphite, gabbro and diorite producing iron and other dark minerals. I believe that clears up the meaning for me. If I have this right, producing opens a new clause which applies to all that came before it. Limestone is sedimentary and not a gneiss, so the list are not examples but other contents of the 'layers' along with the gneisses. Here are a couple ways I'd rephrase it:
The ore mined in Faraday Township (i.e. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine, and Greyhawk Mine) is between 992 million and 1088 million years old. The Cardiff rock, sometimes called the Silver Crater or Fission property in earlier writing (i.e. Dyno Mine, Bicroft Mine) is 1,000 million years old.I feel that the distinction between 992 million and 1088 million years won't have much meaning for most readers, and that this whole part could be summarized as "Uranium ores in these structures are about 1,000 million years old." Add that to the end of the preceding paragraph. (This would also avoid the problem of having to define the mines at this early stage of the article.) If you feel that it's important to keep this information, it can be relegated to a footnote with {{ efn}} and a Notes section before the references which gathers footnotes with {{ notelist}}.
In Canada 99% of known uranium occurrences and 93% of properties producing uranium are on the Canadian Shield, almost all on the western and southern edges of it.Add a comma after the first 'Canada' and link Canadian Shield. If you don't feel it's too much of a stretch, you could also pipe 'properties producing uranium' to uranium mining in Canada.
Located northeast of the Cheddar granite,I think this can be removed, particularly in list form, as the list introduction already states they are ordered southwest to northeast.
Located northeast of the two other granitic complexes,
Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area.It might at first appear to the reader that uranium is the first element of an inline list 'uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals'. There's also some ambiguity with the discovery of uranium as an atomic element (which happened much earlier). Suggest removing the first clause altogether as a rephrase would get a bit wordy. Actually, let me take a run at the whole combined section:
Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff in 1922 by W. M. RichardsonI think keep the full " Cardiff, Ontario," or possibly " Cardiff, southwest of Bancroft," – or alternatively the Cardiff link could be given with the Cardiff plutonic complex.
In 1943,[6] in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalated,[4]The war was still ongoing in 1943, so I don't think we can say "aftermath". Suggest: during World War II. Also, I would put a sentence break after 'escalated'.
Burns, Steele and Shore were three of one hundred area prospects were established in the Bancroft area between 1953 and 1956.Not quite sure what this is saying. Were they 3 of 100 uranium prospectors, or were their prospects 3 of 100 claims made?
a well studied amateur prospector from PeterboroughNeed a comma after Peterborough.
found deposits near Cardiff township, 10 miles southwest of Bancroft, near Paudash Lake.Can we rearrange to avoid the two 'near's? Suggest: found deposits 10 miles (16 km) southwest of Bancroft, near Cardiff township and Paudash Lake.
In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada, Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the Geological Survey of Canada.Was looking to rephrase this but now I'm not certain it's relevant. He can be assumed to be interested in minerals and rocks, it later talks of his property claims, and the book doesn't seem important. Perhaps remove this?
a Mr Robbert Steele in PeterboroughI think just 'Robbert Steele'.
what the Geological Survey officeIf this is first occurrence, link and provide acronym: Geological Survey office → Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)
a subsidiary of Macassa Mines Limited formed in 1953. They discovered uranium north of the original site.Need a comma after 'Limited' and suggest joining the sentences: formed in 1953 and discovered
The mine employed up to 500 people at its peak.[14]I feel that this would be better worked into the paragraph which follows it, which summarizes overall activity of the mine.
Further drilling the following year identified more uranium up to 500 feet undergroundSuggest: Further drilling the following year identified additional deposits to a depth of 500 feet.
Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitation.→ In 2015, inspections found improper surface protection of the tailings and the site has been undergoing rehabilitation. (This could probably be incorporated into the end of the Madawaska Mine paragraph.)
Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.It does say 'generally' though, and it's a minor issue. I'll allow it as there is potential to expand it.
At the Faraday and Madawaska mines, lens-shaped bodies of ore occurIn an earlier section, the term "lenticular dykes" is used (lenticular meaning 'lens-shaped'). It'd probably be best to use one form throughout the article. If you think it needs explanation, it can be defined in a parenthetic on the first occurrence, though I feel the link to lens (geology) is sufficient.
After mining, the uranium ore was treatedI feel that this paragraph should be moved up from geology to mining operations for Greyhawk. Some of the short paragraphs could also be combined.
The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium (specifically the cancellation of a contract to buy by Agip[28]) combined with the more efficient extractionDon't need both combination and combined. Suggest: A global decline in demand
closed the remaining mines in 1964 destroying the local economy→ resulted in the closure of the remaining mines at Bancroft in 1964, jeopardizing the local economy.
Local catholic priest Rev. Henry Maloney, whose two brothers were former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney, and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney, led the community to demand support from the Government of Ontario and Government of Canada to extend the contracts for buying uranium. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community enough time to plan for the closure.→ Local catholic priest Henry Joseph Maloney (brother of former Ontario Ombudsman Arthur Maloney and Minster of Mines James Anthony Maloney) rallied the community to demand support from the provincial and federal government. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, relying on an old agreement with the United Kingdom to buy uranium from Canada, was able to prolong the life of the mine by eighteen months, giving the community time to plan for the closure.
Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines.The mines around Bancroft had a free silica rate of 5–15%, presenting some risk but much less than at the uranium mines around Elliot Lake which produced ore with 60–70% free silica.
In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.→ In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in the province's uranium mines for at least one month between 1955 and 1974. 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, 1 of which was attributable to working a Bancroft mine while the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine.
Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners.→ This was 36 more deaths than expected from provincial lung cancer rates, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners.
A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre→ A study report for the CNSC undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre
Making another copy-edit pass of the prose:
while others understood to be 1,200 million years old→ while others are understood
In Canada, 99% of known uranium occurrencesThis single-sentence paragraph should be combined with other material, probably in the paragraph which follows as it mentions other global locations (while the rest of the section is specific to Bancroft).
Bancroft, known as the "Mineral Capital of Canada"[11] and is only of only five major locations→ Canada",[11] is one of five major locations
from intrusive rocks, the others beingI feel like you need stronger separation here than a comma: either a semicolon or a dash.
Uranium was first discovered in the area of Cardiff, Ontario, in 1922 by prospector W. M. Richardson[1] at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property"[4]: 175 located two kilometers east of Wilberforce on the property know as lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9]Suggest a sentence break after Richardson and then: His find was first called the Richardson deposit, and later the Fission property,[4]:175 and was located two kilometres east of Wilberforce on lot four, concession 21 of Cardiff Township.[9] (Note Canadian spelling of kilometre.)
In 1953 "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur H. Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting.[4]:176–77I feel it's cramming too many ideas together and should be split topically. Here is one way of doing it: In 1953, "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" by G. W. Burns, R. J. Steele and Arthur H. Shore led successful prospecting of the area. The former two discovered the Central Lake deposits, which were developed into Bicroft Mine, while Shore's prospect became the Faraday Mine.[4]:176–77
In an 18 December 1955 letter to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Burns wrote of his interest in minerals and rocks, his purchase of property in Cardiff, his research in Peterborough Public Library, superficially a book Prospecting for Uranium and Thorium in Canada published by the GSC.doesn't add anything and should be removed. Hopefully you've addressed this above.
their work paid off and he started miningI think they started mining, as they were partners.
also known as the Tripp property and also known as the Montgomery propertyI think you can remove the second 'also known as'.
According to a 2012 study published in NatureItalicize the name of the journal.
Since four of the five mines have their own articles, ideally we'd want to migrate a lot of the information from those sections to the articles on the mines, and have the sections in this article tight summaries relevant to the overall subject. However, I feel that's beyond the scope of the GA criteria.
For Greyhawk Mines, I feel that it could include from page 186 of Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium that both the tonnage and grade of ore were below that indicated by surface drilling, which would help toward explaining why the mine shut down after only two years. Suggest something like: Operations uncovered no high-grade ore deposits, leaving the average grade below that of other Bancroft mines. The tonnage of ore was 30% less than feasibility estimates. – I think if you add that right before "Mining operations stopped" readers can draw a likely conclusion without a source explicitly stating it.
Mining operations stopped in 1959up to the end of the preceding paragraph, possibly with a minor rephrase.
The source Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report mentions, on page 3, four other mines in the Bancroft area: Blue Rock, Cavendish, Nu-Age and Tory-Hill. These were probably minor mines, and may not have produced notable quantities of uranium. I feel that it would be worth investigating for sources on these, and make small expansions if reliable secondary sources can be found. (If RSS can't be easily found, then the GA criteria won't require coverage.) Cursory search:
I was wondering if it might be worthwhile to note somewhere that the mines which reopened in the 1970s did so in the context of the
1970s energy crisis? Perhaps this could go just before However, by the 1980s, uranium demand was again down
You wouldn't be able to state a causal relationship without a source, but you could state that there was an energy crisis and then state that some mines reopened, and readers can make the connection themselves. (I feel that there was an energy crisis in the 1970s is readily verifiable and its existence as an event doesn't need a citation.)
Decline, growth and decline
. Alternatively, Response to global demand
could work, but it seems a bit like a teaser, making you read to see what the demand and response were. It doesn't quite fit a boom-bust
business cycle.Regarding the gem lists and marble buildings: I recently had a spirited discussion with a couple editors about inclusion of trivia. 'Trivia' is a bit of a trigger word on Wikipedia, like 'vandalism', and has been used for the wholesale removal of content. However, the importance of information is relative and subjective, and Wikipedia includes lots of notable trivia. When considering inclusion, a good gauge is the information's relevance to the article topic. My first inclination was that the marble floors of the ROM and the gemstone list were at least once-removed from 'uranium mining in Bancroft', and weren't necessary to a summary of the article subject. However, I don't think it's that bad of a thing to have at the end of a section, and goes a way to including some of the galleries. I won't hold up the review on it.
Some minor tone issues covered elsewhere in review
Although there were some recent-ish interest in renewed mineral explorations, no new uranium mining activity has been initiated and it is a mature topic which with no content disputes detected in the article.
All 23 images tagged with free or creative commons licences. The interactive map is generated through Wikimedia maps and OpenStreetMap, so I assume it is not a problem.
GA criteria 6b requires media [to be] relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
A hair-like cluster of acicular uranophane crystals perched nicely in the middle of a matrix plate, mined from Madawaska Mine.Recommend removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('nicely' being a subjective opinion).
Two sharp, brown, octohedral uraninite crystals to 0.9 cm aesthetically perched on red-brown orthoclase matrix from BancroftSuggest removing the underlined words for conciseness and tone ('aesthetically' being subjective) and add a comma before 'from'.
Emplaced in orange calcite is a lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite, 0.7 cm across which has been twinned and penetrated by another uraninite crystal. From Bancroft.→ A lustrous, black, octahedral crystal of uraninite on orange calcite, from Bancroft
An Ontario miner pushes a cart of radium ore c. 1930The file page says this is from the Northwest Territories.
More captions:
You experimented with {{ Multiple image}} in Faraday/Mining operations. Unfortunately, the template is fixed-width and when you have four images side-by-side it can break the sides of the margins on smaller screens (try narrowing your browser window to see). I'd suggest reducing the image size, putting them 2×2 instead of four in a row, or go back to a gallery (which most browsers will automatically adjust for window width).
Doing another check for new images.
Even more new images:
Yet another new image:
Another new image: [:File:Uraninite in Pegmatite (48002874171).jpg]] – confirmed CCbySA2.0
Since we're pretty sure about the article content at this point, I think we can start tackling the lead. I'd like the lead to be in very good shape, as it's the first thing people read – and tends to be the first thing people edit as well.
Assuming everything that appears in the lead is also in the body of the article (which it generally should be), inline citations are only required for quotations and material likely to be challenged.
The discovery of uranium near Bancroft resulted in what was described by engineer A. S. Bayne in a 1977 report as the "greatest uranium prospecting rush in the world"Good for quote, but the report says that the prospecting rush was triggered in "1953, when Centre Lake Uranium Mines Ltd. started underground development".
I'm going to go ahead and try a rewrite of the lead for MOS:LEAD compliance (GA criteria 1b). I'll be aiming for easy to read prose which clearly and succinctly serves as a summary of and an introduction to the article, organized in two or three paragraphs. Again, the GA Somerset Coalfield may serve as an example.
What do you think?
Please ignore this until the points above are addressed. Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might eventually want to improve:
Reference tidying is about organizing it a bit so it's easier to work with. Like making a uniform system of names for the references (rather than the auto-generated ":1" types). Authorsurname-year or institution-year are often a good way to go, or maybe use the title or purpose, just so long as they aren't easily confused.
Another big part is using the appropriate
citation template. If you're researching via the Internet, most of your sources will have websites but often there will be a better template to use than {{
cite web}}. I've mentioned a couple where cite journal is better. For
GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink, it'd be better to use {{
cite report}} with the url
https://gac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GAC-MAC-2013-program-with-abstracts.pdf and page=157 (where the information is at the bottom). When you do use cite web, note the difference between |website=
and |publisher=
. If it's an online news source or magazine, use website; if it's an institution like a government website, use publisher. (Hint: website applies italics while publisher does not). Read through the parameter use in the documentation of the citation template and make sure you're using them appropriately.
Dates: When there are multiple valid styles, MOS generally says to go with the 'established style' of the article – meaning that it's your choice as the article's creator and primary author. Sometimes the established style will be changed with major rewrites, such as here at a GA review, or otherwise after considered discussion. Because the article is about Canada, we will generally use Canadian English and metric. Other styles like date formats and whether to use serial commas are up to you. I personally like dmy dates with the month written out. These are non-ambiguous, and they avoid the MOS:DATECOMMA issue that inevitably comes up with mdy dates.
At the FA level, images should have |alt=
text for accessibility. While the caption explains context and relates the image to the text, the alt text describes the image itself. (more at
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images).
For the article map(s), consider placing a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. There are all kinds of specialist editors on Wikipedia, and these folks know everything about maps. They can tidy up that map as a scalable SVG, colourize it, add or remove features, and advise on any copyright issues (probably not a problem; you can copyright a map but you can't copyright the information on the map, so when they make a new one it will have a free license regardless of the original). Just make sure you know exactly what you want and clearly state your request (with sources as applicable).
You can post any general questions or discussion here. If you have any questions about the specific points above or want to discuss them (and feel free to disagree with me), please post such following the appropriate bullet point above. Try to preserve the list formatting and talk page conventions to keep it tidy and so it's easy to mark our progress. When you've finished making changes to the article, please let me know here and I'll check through your changes. Reviewers usually give 7 days for changes to be made to meet the criteria, but I'll probably go as long as a month since this is your first GAN and the review is fairly long. – Reidgreg ( talk) 17:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the extra work you've done on the article, finding new images and sources where needed.
I could not find some of your changes in the article. Is it possible that they didn't save? I marked these with Not done.
I made some non-controversial direct edits to the article: A bit of tidying, some page numbers (not everywhere), convert templates, and I played around with one table a bit. I hope I didn't introduce any errors.
I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few things but I'm losing a bit of focus over some of this and best pass it back to you. I think we're getting pretty close. I've suggested a few things, notably a rewrite for the lead. – Reidgreg ( talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Reidgreg, CT55555, where does this nomination stand? The most recent edits to the article were made on 9 March, will more be made soon? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This article recently failed to reach Featured Article status ( archive link), mainly due to disagreements about the reliability of the citations from a book by Nila Reynolds. Unfortunately, the discussion about that got cut short after I tried to convince @ Hog Farm and @ Nikkimaria that she is a reliable historian. I'll restate (and slightly refine) my argument again here, hoping to persuade. Also inviting comment from others who didn't comment before it was close @ Reidgreg. Note: there was other minor points on which caused others to not support, mainly the reliability of sources used of minor facts, I don't disagree and will delete those facts if I succeed in persuading others about Reynolds being reliable. My argument:
CT55555( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)