Draft talk:Sams Creek mining#Good article nomination procedure

The website is down regularly. It must also be set to not allow archiving, as the Wayback Machine states that the respective URLs are "not supported". Hence, here are alternative sources for the documents from Siren Gold that the article references:

• [https://www.listcorp.com/asx/sng/siren-gold-limited/news/investor-presentation-2737422.html "Reefton Goldfield, New Zealand"] (PDF). Siren Gold. July 2022.
• [https://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/asxdata/20221117/pdf/02599402.pdf "Sams Creek Mineral Resource Estimate exceeds 800,000oz at higher grade"] (PDF). Siren Gold. 17 November 2022.
• [https://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/asxdata/20230130/pdf/02625099.pdf "Global Resource Reaches Key 1Moz Milestone"] (PDF). Siren Gold. 30 January 2023.

Schwede66 05:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just moved this draft article to mainspace so that I can nominate it for GA review; the template substitution didn't work in draft space. I'm now awaiting that User:ChristieBot does what it does, and I assume that the nomination will soon appear on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page (ChristieBot appears to update the nom page once an hour or so). I will then move this article back to draft, and here's why.

I have a conflict of interest with this topic, as some recent sources mention me or my wife. As such, the reviewer needs to check that WP:NPOV has been met. Once the reviewer and I have worked through all the review issues that will have to be addressed, we can move the article into main space. From that moment onwards, I cannot edit the article any longer to adhere to COI. I see no way that I could put the article through the GA review process if it had already been published, as the reviewer would have to ensure that every subsequent edit of mine adheres to NPOV; this would seem an unreasonable burden on the reviewer.

The article covers the period since gold was discovered in 1974. As such, it makes heavy use of references via ProQuest. As such, I recommend that the reviewer should be a user of The Wikipedia Library, as that gives access to that database. Otherwise, it would be difficult (or near impossible) to check the older references, of which there are many.

I hope this all makes good sense. Schwede66 02:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Schwede66, articles must be and remain in mainspace to be nominated. As you can see, the bot immediately lost track of it when the article went back to mainspace, and that's why. I've removed the nomination, since it's effectively meaningless for an article in Draft space. Maybe you can find someone who's willing to run what's a high-grade Peer Review, almost a shadow GAN review without it being an actual GAN at the time, to get the likely issues out of the way.

:As a secondary matter, you shouldn't be editing the WP:GAN page directly like you did when you moved the article back to draftspace; the bot takes care of details like that. I've just noticed that you've queried on WT:GAN, and I may comment there as well. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, {{u|BlueMoonset}}, for your comments here and at WT:GAN. I was aware that I was outside what is the norm, but that's the best I could think of. Schwede66 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, {{u|Generalissima}}, for offering at WT:GAN to take on the GA nomination process. Let's continue the discussion here. From my perspective, I would kindly ask that you give the article a read with a view to checking for NPOV. Once any issues are cleared up, I suggest that the draft can go into mainspace. But before I do anything else, I shall write a COI statement for this talk page. Schwede66 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations|2=Schwede66 02:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

:{{u|Schwede66}}, i've done a mining GA and various NZ geography-related articles before; if you'd be okay with me being the official nominator, you could just move it to main and I could familiarise myself with the sources and nom it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::I’d be most happy with that, {{u|Generalissima}}. Much appreciated. Have a look at the references, for which you need access to ProQuest via the Wikipedia Library. Schwede66 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Of course! The article seems in good space, there's just a couple questions I have:

:::* I haven't seen a bibliography for a topic like this done before. It strikes me that it might fall into an OR grey zone unless there are sources which cover the bibliography of research done on the topic?

:::* Moreover, these journal articles seem to not actually be cited; wouldn't there be useful information to include in there? They'd seem to be higher-quality sources than news articles in this case. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, silly me questioning WP Library access when I know that you’ve got a few FAs under your belt. I suggest we continue the discussion on the draft article's talk page. Schwede66 19:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Continuation of that discussion:

In answer to your two thoughts and queries – I haven't seen a bibliography for a topic like this done before, either. I just thought that it could be useful to point out that there has been quite a bit of research done. You raise a valid question, though, and that research could be used to write a section on geology. That would challenge me a bit, but I guess I've learned a lot over the last few months. I could also rope in a buddy who is (or used to be) a mining engineer; she's a trained geologist. Whatever I don't understand, she can probably tell me what's going on. What do you think of that, {{u|Generalissima}}? Schwede66 02:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:That sounds like a good idea - local geology certainly seems like the kind of thing that'd be expected on an article like this, and from experience it's usually not *that* hard to summarize if you google key terms. Having a geologist friend will certainly help manners too.

: Side note: Coverage of rivers has always been an interest of mine on here, although I haven't as had as much opportunity to write about them, as they're often quite involved articles. If you would like to collab on an article about the Tākaka River itself sometime, that'd be really nice! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Re the side note, consider than a done deal! Schwede66 02:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Rad! Also, one more note; as master's papers are not generally considered reliable, I'm unsure if they should be included in a bibliography anyhow. If we can incorporate all the journal papers into the article, its bibliography section (within the references) will function as a bibliography of the creek in-and-of-itself (and anything we don't used could get put in 'Further reading'). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding the Tākaka River, you may have seen that I have started expanding that article, {{u|Generalissima}}. I'll write something about the river's bridges next (based on the Waimakariri River article). Thus far, I have covered topics where sources wouldn't be readily available from afar. The Tākaka River has a history of flooding, which you can no doubt find material about on PapersPast or the Wikipedia Library. The other local river article that needs serious TLC is the Aorere River. Schwede66 00:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Update on the geology section: I've had a different geologist friend (a bloke) volunteer to write a section. He's read the research papers and reckons that he'll have something written in a fortnight, aiming for something in the order of 600 words. Schwede66 23:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The draft article is coming along well. Here are my suggestions relating to structure:

1. Relocate the "Land zones" section to the top of the article, and retitle as "Geography". Expand as necessary to provide a reasonable geographic background to the rest of the article, giving the "Setting" of Sams Creek and the proposed mine
2. Split the content under History that is currently under the heading Siren Gold (2022–present) into:

:* Siren Gold (2022–present)

:* Community opposition

:The reason for this second suggestion is that most of the content currently under the Siren Gold heading is actually about community opposition. It may also be worth including in this section a brief mention of the reaction when Maureen Pugh visited Tākaka. There was significant media coverage._Marshelec (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Good suggestions! Thanks, Marshelec. Schwede66 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've dealt with your two main suggestions, {{u|Marshelec}}. I'll dig something out about the Maureen Pugh visit. Schwede66 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|ChaseKiwi}}, thanks a million for that map. Where did you get the Sams Creek Dyke data from? Did you trace that from ASX statements issued by Siren Gold? I'm curious! Schwede66 23:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Technically an initial orientation trace as a line was from figure 1 Windle & Craw 1991. Final trace as surface areas is from figure 1 Tullock 1992 as this had better reference points that I could better map to NZ topo map, earlier paper versions of which would have been used by the 1980 CRA exploration geologists at a good guess. The national geology data base proved to be useless except for nearly mapped faults. I have added as sfn reference as do not know how to do concisely otherwise. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ah. Interesting. By the way, I have all the papers referenced, bar the 2014 master's thesis. If you need anything, let me know. Schwede66 02:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)