The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article mostly addresses the main aspects of the topic, however is sometimes too short in sections like environmental legacy, where some more explanation could be given Resolved, article addresses main aspects of the topic
Moved corporate ownership history out of environmental and ownership section to expand the ownership section. I then renamed the legacy section to only focus on environmental section
Found some 2022 activity history and added it
Overall, I have expanded the sections you mentioned, but I have not expanded them massively, as my searches indicate there is not much content to be found.
Hi CT, thanks for the ping. I made some effort to find missing human/environmental impacts from the mine. I didn't really find anything. There's no mention in the EJAtlas. I found a brief mention about reclamation work in this conference paper. I haven't done a thorough review of this article, but there don't seem to be glaring omissions.I do have a question about the sentence I corrected: In 2015, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario criticized the provisional government for the lack of financial assurances from the owner of the mine, EWL Management Limited, who were among a group of mine owners that had not put aside funds for environmental clean up fees, leaving the Government of Ontario at risk of covering any remediation costs.. Should that be the provincial government? (I can't load that source, even from the archive). Also, since the remediation is complete, we should be able to say who paid for it. Was the Government of Ontario at risk of covering the costs, or did they pay for it? A sentence about the government's rehabilitation of the site could be appropriate in the lead.Other than that, everything seems accurate and reasonably complete as far as I can tell. Larataguera (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. It should have been the Provincial government. I've fixed it. It seems likely that the government paid for the clean up, but I could not find a source that says that, so I think we need to leave it as it stands. Thanks for your work. I've searched far and wide and if you have too, I think.
It's great to see the conference paper, but I don't think there is anything we should add from it.
It's pretty good. If DimensionalFusion's concerns are about depth of coverage and completeness, I would say that it seems complete, because I haven't found anything else to add. If I were reviewing this article I would probably ask if it were possible to find any images? Larataguera (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate your logical review and clear recommendations. I wouldn't normally comment, but you said you were new to the process. To complete it you need to do the steps listed here WP:GAN/I#R4CT55555(talk) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.