Talk:Banded iron formation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will review this soon. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Remove references from the lead or move them to the prose instead as the lead is basically a summary of the prose.

Done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The lead does a good job at summarizing the article. However, it has four short paragraphs right now. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, it should be three paragraphs long. I would suggest merging sentences in a way that all three paragraphs are uniform in size.

The article is over 60,000 characters long. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article over 30,000 characters can have three or four paragraphs in the lead.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead length applies to character length of words, ignoring formatting characters, which for this article comes to "26,267" as of this edit. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Very well. Since the first paragraph has a brief description, I've moved the second paragraph giving the fuller description to the start of the Description section, and edited a bit to make it fit in better. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

General

• Use either "mya" or "Ma" throughout consistently.

Done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Description

• Link — "chert", "magnetite", "hematite", "Barberton Greenstone Belt" in the image and write it in title case, and "Neoproterozoic".

I'm not quite sure what you're requesting., Chert, magnetite, and hematite are already linked exactly once, in the lead. Others done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles usually link words in the lead once, and then again once in the prose. Things can also be linked again in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and hatnotes per MOS:DL. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Relinking everything in lead a second time in body. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The iron in BIFs is divided roughly equally between the more oxidized ferric form, Fe(III), and the more reduced ferrous form, Fe(II), so that the ratio Fe(III)/Fe(II+III) typically varies from 0.3 to 0.6. This indicates a predominance of magnetite, in which the ratio is 0.67." — It isn't very clearly to me how the former sentence would indicate that there would be a predominance of magnetite. Maybe clarify or simplify that a bit?

Added that ratio is zero in hematite, showing there's almost always more magnetite than hematite. Good suggestion. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "granular iron formations or GIFs" — Avoid using bold, and use italics instead, per MOS:NOBOLD.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "H.L. James" and "Gross" — Use their full names and link them if they have Wikipedia articles.

Done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "but this speculative model has not held up." → "but this speculative model did not hold up."

Done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Occurrence

• Link — "Precambrian", "Yukon", and "Ma" when first mentioned

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Trendall" — Mention their full name and link it.

Could not find Wiki article. His works seem always signed A.F. without full names spelled out.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• " the "Snowball Earth"." → "the Snowball Earth hypothesis."

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Origins

• Link — "cyanobacteria".

Already linked in lead.

• "had not yet evolved mechanisms (such as superoxide dismutase) for living in an oxygenated environment." — "superoxide dismutase" is an enzyme so shouldn't be used in brackets after "mechanism". If I understand correctly, the mechanism being discussed is of antioxidants preventing production of reactive oxygen species that injure cells in an oxygen rich environment. Perhaps you can write "mechanisms and enzymes" instead.

I think just enzymes. Off-hand I don't know any other evolved mechanisms. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Such organisms would have been protected from their own oxygen waste" — "oxygen waste" can be linked to Reactive oxygen species.

Done

• "Cloud suggested that banding resulted from fluctuations in the population of cyanobacteria due to self-poisoning by oxygen" — Perhaps it could be written as → "Cloud suggested that banding resulted from fluctuations in the population of cyanobacteria due to free radical damage." or "Cloud suggested that banding resulted from fluctuations in the population of cyanobacteria due to self-poisoning by oxygen."

I think Cloud may have actually used the phrase "self-poisoning", which is pretty evocative. But I also see that it sounds like mass suicide. I'll go with yours. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Some details of Cloud's original model have had to be abandoned." → "Some details of Cloud's original model were abandoned."

Done--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "mya" — Link it when it is first mentioned in the section and unlink it from the last.

Switching to consistent use of Ma. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Formation processes

• "The details of the processes by which banded iron formation was deposited continue to be topics for active research." — Perhaps it is self-evident but a citation wouldn't hurt.

Self-evident enough that it can just be tossed, I think.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link — "varves",

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Source of reduced iron

• Unlink — "mid-ocean ridges" as it is already linked in the section above.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link — "seepage".

done.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Absence of oxygen or hydrogen sulfide

• "Holland argues that the absence of manganese deposits during the pause between Paleoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic BIFs is evidence that the deep ocean had become at least slightly oxygenated." — This line should come right after the "Holland ocean" theory line, and the "Canfield ocean" shouldn't be in the middle. Also, use full name instead of just "Holland".

Yes, good. It's more neutral this way. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "An asteroid (estimated at 10 km across) slammed into waters" → "An asteroid (estimated at 10 km across) crashed into waters".

Better yet, impacted? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oxidation

Oxygenic photosynthesis

• "Strictly speaking, this is not a biogenic process." — If not, what kind of process is it? That could be mentioned with a "... but a ... process."

Yeah, that bothered me when the statement was made in the source. The idea, as I understand it, is that organisms are not directly involved in the iron oxidation, so the oxygen could have come from anywhere ... but it seems a little too fine a point, given that the only plausible free source of oxygen is cyanobacteria. I'm going to take out the phrase completely.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Anoxygenic photosynthesis

• Link — "Isua"

Isua Greenstone Belt is linked earlier in the article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "An alternate route is oxidation by anaerobic denitrifying bacteria:" and "This requires that nitrogen fixation by microorganisms is also active" — Would be better to merge it instead of having two one-sentence paragraphs.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Abiogenic mechanisms

• "The carbon that is present in banded iron formations is enriched in the light isotope, 12C, an indicator of a biological origin." — Merge it with a paragraph as it is just a one-sentence long paragraph.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Blockley" — Use their full name and link it if possible.

Done my best. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link — "photooxidation"

Done EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Diagenesis

• "The silica component of the banded iron formations likewise likely precipitated as a hydrous silica gel." → "Similarly, the silica component of the banded iron formations likely precipitated as a hydrous silica gel."

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link — "ferric hydroxide"

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Snowball Earth

• Unlink — "Snowball Earth" from the prose,

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Mya" — Shouldn't it be "mya" as it has been used so far.

Using Ma consistently everywhere now. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Economic geology

• "fundamental to the prosperity of the industrialized world." — Should be rewritten per WP:PEACOCK.

This is actually a close paraphrase of the source. I could insert a direct quote, but the original was already a peacock phrase. Removing. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "More than 60% of global iron reserves are in the form of banded iron formation, which can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and the United States. — Are these the only contries to have them? Or would writing "most" be more accurate? → "More than 60% of global iron reserves are in the form of banded iron formation, most of which can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and the United States." — If "most" works here, this should also be changed in the lead.

Fair point. Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link — "Marquette", "Gogebic", "Menominee", "Quadrilatero Ferrifero", "pig iron".

Done. Plus rolled steel. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Banded iron formation was first discovered in northern Michigan in 1844, and mining of these deposits prompted the earliest studies of banded iron formation, such as those of Van Hise and Leith." — "Banded iron formation" should only be written once in one sentence.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Van Hise and Leith" — Use full names.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "taconite" — should only be linked once.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Unlink — "Australia", "Brazil", "iron"

Done. And you caused me to remember I'd incorporated text from the Anshan article here -- I need to note that on the Anshan page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Then again not. It looks like I heavily condensed and reworked the material rather than incorporating as is. No note needed. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "in that the best ore is hematite" — use a more bland and descriptive term instead of "best".

GOing with "favored". --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "second largest producer" — mention which country would be the largest producer.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Use either "World War II" or "the Second World War" consistently.

Done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Current" — Use "As of YYYY" instead.

done. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Reference 9 — Needs some changes in pages parameter.
• Reference 10 — "303–05" → "303–305"
• Reference 33 — "Publisher" should be "Porter GeoConsultancy" and not "Portergeo.com.au".
• Reference 34 — "Western Australian Museum" should be in "publisher" parameter.
• Reference 57 — "KIMBERLEY" → "Kimberley" per MOS:ALLCAPS.
• Reference 59 and 72 — Need page numbers.
• Reference 64 — "IRON ORE" → "Iron Ore".
• Reference 66 — Needs a few more parameters.
• Reference 67 — Use refname function as this is the same as Reference 33.
• Reference 68 — Needs proper formatting
• Reference 69 — Needs more parameters.
• Reference 71 — "website=www.ceicdata.com" → "publisher=CEIC Data".

Looks like some of these disappeared when removing cites from lead. Numbers no longer match. Will try to check over the rest.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That is okay Kent G. Budge. I will work on them and then have another look, but everything seems all right! — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That should be all for now. This article reminded me of my first good article review, Burt's solar compass. It is written nicely and should pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

The lead covers the prose appropriately, however it could be argued that it is a bit too compact in its structure. Three-line paragraphs appear inconsistent when you compare them with the prose where most paragraphs are four or more lines long on average. But that is a minor point and not something that would prevent an article which is as well-written as this from being promoted.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article summarizes the topic in great detail with good explanations. It is an engaging read and meets the criteria. Thank you for all your efforts! — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)