Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

GeneralEditors and proof readers needed

5th Apr 2013 00:50 UTCRock Currier Expert

For some time the managers have been talking about creating a second and more serious type of articles. Those that would undergo pier review and proofreading. It is hoped by this process to raise the quality of the article to the point it was deemed worth of including in a more professional group of articles.

I would like to find out how many Mindat users would welcome this kind of article and how many users might volunteer to do the proof reading, editing and critical reading necessary to make suggestions for the improvement of the articles. Only those articles where the author would request this process would be so treated.

5th Apr 2013 01:15 UTCBob Harman

HEY ROCK , I might be interested and to start with, in your first paragraph, second sentence the word is "peer". But seriously, I might be interested CHEERS........BOB

5th Apr 2013 01:50 UTCJim Sullivan

Proofreading is one word :-) (you got it right in the first paragraph, not the second) -- there's a comma between 'editing' and 'and' and also between 'article' and 'and' --- 'worth' might need a 'y' -- And I've done several 'pier reviews' as a technical diver -- we usually call them 'inspections', though :-)

* Just having fun with you Rock :-)

I'd volunteer for this :-)

5th Apr 2013 02:08 UTCRock Currier Expert

Well guys, I had to find out if you were worth your salt or not! Hows that for an excuse. But seriously, anyone that might be interested in doing this kind of work, speak up here and we will put you on a list of people that you or others can call upon from time to time to do this kind of work and which must eventually be done if we are to improve the quality of the articles here on Mindat. I have worked with several different proofreaders and editors and reviewers over the years, and have found out that the best ones will say something like I don't mean to be critical and want to change what you write as little as possible and then proceed to take a meat ax to the thing and create a sea of red ink. It is sometimes a brutal and discouraging process, but the end result always seems to be better, sometimes much better.

5th Apr 2013 02:21 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Rock,

Count Nat and I in! :-)

5th Apr 2013 02:24 UTCPaul L. Boyer

I would be willing to help if needed.......Lord knows I have reviewed enough articles in my life! Paul, should it not be "Nat and me"?

5th Apr 2013 02:29 UTCDoug Daniels

I may be able to help if needed. I've had to write many technical reports on environmental investigations, and most managers considered me good at the writing, thus be inference possibly at editing/reviewing articles. I've also helped my wife edit both the newsletter for our local gem & mineral club & the SE Federation newsletter. Not that I'm that brilliant, but every little bit helps the authors.

5th Apr 2013 02:48 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Give Mr. Boyer a gold sticky star. ;-)

Huked on fonix rely wurked fer me!

5th Apr 2013 02:53 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

Rock test your potential editors by asking if it's spelled "anal retentive" or "anal-retentive".

Seriously, you should also ask for editors of languages other than English, and people with bona fide mineralogical credentials. Part of any (serious) pier (sic) review process is not only commentary on grammar and spelling, but perhaps more importantly, on the technical/scientific details.

You might also ask your editors about their areas of specialization, and assign articles to editors based on their expertese.

5th Apr 2013 04:21 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert

Rock,

In your first posting (April 04, 2013 11:50PM), your second “sentence” is a sentence fragment–actually a clause that modifies “articles”--that should be part of the first sentence. The third sentence is grammatically correct but is a sloppy passive construction. You should state the same thing actively, such as “We hope to raise the quality of . . . ”

Your second paragraph makes this all sound voluntary. That is, the grammatically incorrect or sloppily written articles would be published as submitted if the author refused to allow the editorial process. Is that what you really mean? If so, you won’t accomplish what you say your objective is.

In you second posting (April 05, 2013 01:38AM) the first word of the second sentence is supposed to be a contraction of “How is” which is written “How’s.” Since that is a question it should be punctuated with a question mark. In the third sentence, you refer to a person (“anyone”) with the relative pronoun “that.” but “that” refers to a thing, not person. You should have said “. . . anyone WHO might be interested . . . ” You made the same mistake in the fourth sentence (" . . . people THAT . . . " should be " . . . people WHO . . . "). Also, that fourth sentence is not really a run-on, but should be made into two sentences because two separate thoughts have been cobbled together with an "and."

Need I go on? Well, I will.

As for Steve Hardinger’s issues (April 05, 2013 01:53AM), the word is “anal-retentive.” The last word in his posting should be “expertise,” not “expertese.”

I have a meat ax (or axe), and I know how to use it.

5th Apr 2013 04:39 UTCJohn Magnasco Manager

Rock:

I'd be happy to review technically if the work was relevant to my areas of expertise. Additionally, I'd be willing to review from a technical writing and English standpoint. I've directed technical publications functions for the last few companies where I've worked

5th Apr 2013 10:56 UTCPeter Nancarrow 🌟 Expert

I haven't done much proofreading for many years, but I enjoy writing (as is self-evident to anyone who has read any of my blogs) and am a bit of a stickler for the correct use of English. My Roget's Thesaurus is second only to my Oxford Dictionary in being the book most frequently found on my desk. (I don't claim to never make mistakes myself of course, but I try to be self-critical)..

If I were to contribute, then one area of contention might be that I am something of a reactionary when it comes to changing well-established spellings, and I would insist on the English use of words: I abhor spelling such as "aluminum", "gray" and"color", and word misuse such as "alternate" when the meaning in context is "alternative". (And I still use "haematite" and "sulphur" despite what the IMA tries to impose on us, and although I have accepted "titanite", I do miss "sphene"!)

That said, I'd be willing to help where I can. I will refer anyone considering requesting my input to my Mindat profile, which gives quite a lot of information on my professional background and interests in mineralogy & geology.

Pete N.

PS: seeing John M.'s sign-out quotation from Einstein (above) prompts me to add one of my own favourites here:

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

5th Apr 2013 13:25 UTCOwen Lewis

Norman King Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As for Steve Hardinger’s issues (April 05, 2013

> 01:53AM), the word is “anal-retentive.” The

> last word in his posting should be

> “expertise,” not “expertese.”

The compound adjective 'anally-retentive' is correct, when referring to a particular state (of mind). I dislike the American usage as a noun as in 'anal-retentive', other than, perhaps, as an epithet. For any other use, the noun form is imprecise. Nevertheless one accepts that American and English are variants of the same language root. In these days of the internationalisation of use of English, which of the two forms to use should be determined by context and the flavour the writer wishes to impart.

> I have a meat ax (or axe), and I know how to use

> it.

It is a cleaver, Norman; battle-axe, meat cleaver.

5th Apr 2013 13:32 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

I like your idea, Rock. The peer-reviewed section should be only for peer-reviewed articles. If someone wants to stay out of the peer-review process can submit articles as they always have. "Articles" should now be categorized as peer-reviewed or as blogs. I know of several scholarly articles submitted by thin-skinned writers where the articles were withdrawn from consideration when that author was challenged by the editors about content submitted. The journal editors then had to scrabble to find replacement articles in order to meet deadlines for the specialized issues that had been planned. Peer-review is akin to cooking - if you can't stand the heat, get out.

5th Apr 2013 14:23 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Wow!! What a response! I am now very tempted to put my own proposal that I have been ruminating over on the forum to see if I get anything like this as a response. Keep your eyes pealed! (or is that "peeled"?)

5th Apr 2013 15:05 UTCHarold Moritz 🌟 Expert

Rock:

Great idea, please put me down. I think mindat.org can and should serve as a viable alternative to the printed mineral literature. I like this idea because the mineral magazines either want authors to indemnify the magazine (akin to the non-paid author potentially reimbursing the money-making corporation for legal costs (even if they win!), which I wont do, or their acceptance criteria for articles are, shall we say, biased toward pretty, expensive minerals. Plus the print media are limited by space and printing costs.

As for me, I spent 27 years as a consultant and I wrote and reviewed hundreds of geological reports. Some of these reports have gone through the most vicious kind of review - litigation. So I think I can help, depending on the subject. I presume that if this idea goes forth there will be some kind of expertise database set up to find appropriate reviewers.

Fritz

5th Apr 2013 17:13 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert

Wow! It's "Editor Wars!"

Some interesting points, though. And I know I can start a sentence with "and," and I thought to myself that "cleaver" is the word I would have used. Axes are for trees and maybe battle. But, believe it or not, I like to use the authors' expressions where possible. In fact, I think Rock's objective was to have us picture someone swinging from the hips, slashing everything in sight. Picture a baseball hitter, swinging for the bleachers. So, OK, "meat AX."

I would also accept either English or American usage, per the custom and wishes of the author. Of course, when people are talking, you can't see how they spelled their words, so there really isn't any substantive (not substantial!) difference. For those whose native tongue is not English, I suspect that most authors might actually be hoping that accepted expressions are suggested for an English text. I think they know that otherwise their writing might detract from their message, which no one wants.

I had never heard "anally-retentive," though. Amazing for someone who is, isn't it? Perhaps two editors are better than one, but someone has to finally make a decision so we can go to press.

5th Apr 2013 17:18 UTCEverett Harrington Expert

Chet, I do believe it is "peeled", and to that end, with a very sharp knife . :) Rock, I'd help in any way I can, I've been published a couple times myself.

thanks

E

5th Apr 2013 18:25 UTCOwen Lewis

Norman King Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

:.... Perhaps two

> editors are better than one, but someone has to

> finally make a decision so we can go to press.

Exactly so. (Not a sentence, I know but fragments do have legitimate usage where meaning is clear). Editors are like lawyers. Put two of them together in the same room and one is assured the representation of at least three opinions. Dictatorship is simply more productive than rule by committee.

I see the key area as being the selection of a limited number of very talented people for the editor posts. In a specialist field within material science, expertise of true peer standing with the author is the pre-requisite. That winnows the field of eager applicants rather. Then there is the requirement not so much for grammatical and syntactical nit-picking (though that capability is desirable occasionally) but rather for someone who with a steady and sure hand to guide or improve the architecture of a 2-6,000 word piece of prose.

If one were to add the requirement to find applicants with those essential qualities in the different major languages, then I think the quest becomes too great for Mindat to manage. Mindat is not and cannot aspire to be a Wiley or Springer Verlag.

IMHO there is a need to prioritize the selection criteria and that the prime criterion must be mineralogical expertise. After that other talents can be sought and employed as an when they found in volunteers.

Just my two pennyworth.....

5th Apr 2013 18:41 UTCBarb Matz

Much like Doug, I've written and reviewed numerous technical reports of environmental investigations, and was a newsletter editor for ten years, all with good feedback. I'd be happy to help you, if needed.

Barb

5th Apr 2013 18:42 UTCTim Jokela Jr

I like editing, but hate small-island-English words like "aluminium", "baryte", "grey", "colour", "haematite", and ESPECIALLY "sulphur".

One area I've seen standards slipping is mineral identification. I'd suggest that an article isn't ready for publication if the minerals aren't properly analyzed. If it's something really weird that's amorphous or a complex mixture or whatever, and would take years to get clarified, I can live with that, but talking about "green unknown" or "mystery blue mineral" isn't good. Need EDS results for everything, minimum, or don't publish.

Add me to the list, I can catch typos at least.

5th Apr 2013 19:37 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Hi Rock, as I am somewhat familiar with minerals, mineralogy, and analytic methods associated with them, I'd be happy to help out in the editing area, especially from a technical perspective.

5th Apr 2013 20:51 UTCVolker Betz 🌟 Expert

Hi Rock,

I like the idea of peer reviewed articles. And vaguely remember this has been announced by the management some years ago, but did not happen (its work !)

I have seen recently some "articles" in mindat after reading them it was not clear to me: Did I read nonsense or is just my reading in English to bad to understand the content (if there was any).

Regards

Volker

5th Apr 2013 23:07 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> I like editing, but hate small-island-English words like "aluminium", "baryte", "grey", "colour",

> "haematite", and ESPECIALLY "sulphur".

I agree about the last one. It's so inconsistent when compared with Fosfurous.

Jolyon

5th Apr 2013 23:36 UTCRock Currier Expert

I am gratified at the response here and I hope yet others will yet respond. I hope this larger and expected response will enable mindat to create some sort of pier reviewed system and body of better quality articles. When we create a formal list of reviewers, I think it might be appropriate for each proofreader/ editor/ reviewer to write something about who they are, in other words their background and the kind of work they would feel comfortable doing. Some authors find it easier to work with some editors/reviewers than others. Some articles will be strong on mineralogy, and others may be more about working specific localities, how to articles or other things entirely that may require a different set of skills and reviewers. Just as the author can opt in or opt out of the process, so also should the editors/reviewers also be able to opt out or working on a particular article. Just some thoughts here and I am sure others will chime in with yet other good ideas or thoughts.

6th Apr 2013 00:34 UTCDon Windeler

Rock et al.:

I'm happy to help out as I can, if for no other reason to help hold the line against the insidious, creeping acceptance of "... is comprised of..." and "... the data is..."

Cheers,

D.

6th Apr 2013 04:31 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Well stated, Rock.

One of the things that make Nat and me an excellent team when writing and reviewing papers is that we each have a different specialty when it comes to geology, yes both of us can use our individual knowledge of the subject to correct grammar and fact check what is being presented. If we're selected, we'd be more than happy to provide a background statement of our expertise.

6th Apr 2013 06:16 UTCRui Nunes 🌟 Expert

Rock, I like the idea too. I can give a little help with regard to articles about Portugal.

6th Apr 2013 09:05 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> One of the things that make Nat and me an excellent team when writing and reviewing papers

Sorry :)

6th Apr 2013 11:04 UTCMatt King

Hi All

I think that we are in danger of confusing two different ideas here; editing/proof reading and peer review. And they don't always go together!

Peer review is about the accuracy and validity of a text, based on certain criteria defined within a community, be it scientific or something else. I am sure lots of people here, like myself, have published in peer reviewed publications. From my experience many peer reviewers excel in judging the article on content merit, but are actually very poor editors or proof readers. So in many cases the articles come back with suggestions/changes of content but with no changes to the actual way the article is written.

Editing/proof reading is about making sure the article is concise and does not contain grammatical and typographical errors. Very important but also very likely to cause a lot of controversy, unless there is a list of pre-agreed standards.

Tim (above) is a case point. Whilst he personally 'hates' what he calls small-island English spellings I suspect this is a personal preference and because these are the so-called 'accepted' forms in the US. But, not in the rest of the English-speaking world. So who is right?

My personal view is that the site should be using scientific spellings that were used first in written form, irrespective of where they come from. So Aluminium stays Aluminium, not Aluminum. Baryte stays baryte and Sulphur stays sulphur, to Jolyon's point.

The others like colour-color, grey-grey, etc are more difficult but whatever the decision, someone somewhere is bound to get wound up about it.

Just remember the phrase - I say Tomayto and you say tomato.

Cheers

M

6th Apr 2013 12:55 UTCAnonymous User

I'd be willing to proofread, since I do a lot of it now and have written over 80 articles for R & M.

(Paul - it's Nat and me)

6th Apr 2013 12:56 UTCAnonymous User

OOPS!! I bad - you're right. My apologies.

6th Apr 2013 13:05 UTCRock Currier Expert

Mat is correct. Peer Review, proof reading and editing are separate jobs, though some people can do them all to some extent. But they are all work that Mindat may be asking the people who sign up here to do for free if they find the work acceptable to them. Ultimately Jolyon is the editor in that he will decide what goes on mindat and what not. However he rarely steps in and says no. So to a great extent, the managers and other knowledgeable people here on mindat step up and so far, unlike the Republicans and Democrats in the American congress, we seem to be able to agree more or less what is acceptable here. I fervently hope that this can continue.

6th Apr 2013 13:27 UTCOwen Lewis

> > One of the things that make Nat and me an

> excellent team when writing and reviewing papers

>

> Sorry :)

Surely not 'Nat and I'. Never. ;-)

6th Apr 2013 13:49 UTCChris Stefano Expert

I am also willing to be involved in this process.

I would point out that Mindat's photo/locality database is already somewhat "peer reviewed" and it would probably be valuable to do this with all non-message board articles on the site.

6th Apr 2013 21:59 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

With my husband as past editor of several ornithology journals, I have worked with him for years as assistant - proofreading, some editing, much correspondence and cajoling. I would be willing to occasionally proofread for Mindat. As my expertise is biology, I would certainly not be expert enough to review papers for Mindat, although I very much look forward to them.

This is a fascinating proposal, Rock - and I have several suggestions (and a hundred more in mind).

You will need a good list of qualified reviewers, so that no one is asked to review more than 2-3 articles per year, and I would strongly suggest (from long experience) that you ask people to review only if they can return that review within a set time frame...perhaps 2-3 weeks. If you overburden a few trusted reviewers, they will soon opt out.

You need to have a standard format for articles - it could be simple, or it might follow that of established journals (e.g., abstract, intro., methods, results, discussion, references). It depends upon what you mean by "more professional articles".

It will make all stages of preparation easier if there is a stated, standarized style for presenting quantitative data, references, etc. (Proofreaders will need to know these.) It would be wise to choose a single language - probably British English, as the site originates here - but you could allow brief abstracts in the author's native language.

As others have said, you really do need a managing editor to oversee the quality of articles and consistency in style, and to deal with authors. If your long-term goal is to establish Mindat as an on-line equivalent of a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, the editor needs to be independent of the site owner (although the editor could certainly serve on the management team.) If you simply want more "polished" articles, this does not matter.

There is much more to consider, of course. My main question was not whether or not you could assemble an editorial staff...rather, could you attract enough articles of sufficient quality? Many professional people, whether academics, government or industry employees, are expected to publish a number of papers each year in established (and even the higher-rated) scientific journals. Will Mindat attract enough authors, given that publishing on Mindat might not fulfill those requirements?

It's a great proposal, and I wish the management team all the best.

7th Apr 2013 05:28 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Paul Brandes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rock,

> Count Nat and I in!

You folks do realise that my first post in this thread was in fact a deliberate mistake to see if anyone would indeed catch it?

Didn't believe it was going to create such a firestorm though...

9th Apr 2013 05:14 UTCRay H. Breuninger

Rock,

Great idea! I'd like to help in any way possible.

I see a big gap between the mostly informal articles now posted on Mindat, and a formally structured scientific paper or technical report. Perhaps we might set up a two- or three-fold structure:

Informal articles, proofed for spelling and grammar, edited for clarity and conformance with a basic format; a few

pertinent references included; the format could be flexible and customized by article topic;

Technical articles, as above but peer-reviewed for content, and with abstract and full citations;

Ray

9th Apr 2013 12:14 UTCRock Currier Expert

Volker,

Would you be willing to review articles with a critical eye and give corrections and advice about how the article could be made better?

9th Apr 2013 12:37 UTCMaggie Wilson Expert

I'd be happy to assist, too. I bring a "newbie's" eye to the mix. If articles are meant for the layperson in the audience, I can identify those that might not be so easily understood.

Maggie

9th Apr 2013 12:39 UTCRock Currier Expert

Becky,

Those are good ideas. Would you consider taking the time to fill out some background about yourself on you home page. I have given you level one status here on mindat. This will allow you to upload images.

9th Apr 2013 12:53 UTCRock Currier Expert

Ray,

I suspect that full bore professional papers will require yet a separate category of article and a separate list of professionals to review them. If mindat continues to grow I suspect that sooner or later that one or more of the professional mineralogical organizations will approach Mindat with a proposal that it take over the publishing of the papers in their journal. At this time I think it might make sense to set up a truly professional section for scientific articles. What I have in mind to get started is more along the line of articles published currently in some of the amateur magazines but perhaps with a little tougher review process by at least two people.

9th Apr 2013 12:58 UTCRock Currier Expert

Doug,

Could you give us a little more information about you background on your home page? I have given you level one status so you can now add localities and images to the database.

9th Apr 2013 13:10 UTCRock Currier Expert

Steve,

Are you willing to review some articles if asked?

9th Apr 2013 13:14 UTCRock Currier Expert

Tim,

Could you give us a little more background about yourself on your home page if you like?

9th Apr 2013 13:21 UTCRock Currier Expert

Norman,

Does your post indicate that you would be willing to review articles now and then?

9th Apr 2013 13:28 UTCRock Currier Expert

Van,

Does this mean you will be willing to review articles from time to time if asked?

9th Apr 2013 15:12 UTCDon Swenson

Rock,

You certainly have evoked a spate of volunteers. I wish to offer a specialized form of proof reading. Spell check is useless for homophone errors (to, too, two). Not only am I an excellent speller, I have extensive experience with proof reading. In addition, I'm retired so I have plenty of time on my hands.

Don

10th Apr 2013 14:27 UTCRock Currier Expert

Barb,

Thanks for volunteering. I have given you a level 1 here on mindat and you can now upload images and localities to mindat. Could you share a little more about your background with us on you home page perhaps?

10th Apr 2013 14:48 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

Rock, to which 'Steve' is your 'Steve' question directed?

10th Apr 2013 14:56 UTCRock Currier Expert

Susan, Thanks for volunteering to help. I have given you a level 1 on mindat and you now can upload images and localities to our database. Could you perhaps share with us something more about your background on you home page?

10th Apr 2013 15:10 UTCRock Currier Expert

Jim,

Could you perhaps give us a bit more about your background on your home page perhaps. I appreciate your offer to help.

10th Apr 2013 15:15 UTCRock Currier Expert

Jeff,

Thanks for offering to help. Would you care to share with us, perhaps on you home page something of your background?

12th Apr 2013 02:25 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert

Rock,

I should be able to help in articles covering a broad range of geological concepts, including areas marginal to mineralogy such as tectonics and petrology, and especially relating to sedimentology and paleontology. I can also do the general editor's work of evaluating grammar, sentence construction, clarity of expression, and organization of any text. In fact, in the past I did that kind of work for a living. I think it is important, because Mindat printed materials will receive respect in accordance with their quality, including all of those facets. It would be better for Mindat if people who are not willing to accept high standards in all areas published their work elsewhere.

BTW, remember "anal retentive"? Steve Hardinger suggested you test potential editors by asking them " . . . if it's spelled "anal retentive" or "anal-retentive." I researched the term following the comment by Owen Lewis that, in fact, it should be "anally retentive." It turns out that Steve's question cannot be answered as posed, because, technically, it depends whether the term is used in the sense of a noun (anal retentive) of adjective referring to behavior (anal-retentive). However, the two spellings have seemingly been thoroughly mixed together, and may appear in any context without objection (and dictionaries follow usage). "Anally retentive" is also acceptable, but anal retentive is always the preferred usage, and that is how Sigmund Freud used it. It is not a well-accepted term these days, and is never proper in polite company. That's one we shouldn't have to worry about much.

Thanks for your invitation.

12th Apr 2013 02:41 UTCDoug Daniels

Rock-

Maybe this was covered earlier, but what kind of background info should we add to our home pages? I don't want to bore everyone (or myself) with my full life story...

12th Apr 2013 15:25 UTCTony L. Potucek Expert

Hi, Rock,

I can assist where needed. You have my qualifications.

tlp

12th Apr 2013 18:32 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

Rock, make sure your editors can spell 'andara' and 'third chakra'.

12th Apr 2013 19:18 UTCIan Merkel

Rock,

I'd be happy to help out too.

Cheers.

Ian

16th Apr 2013 17:17 UTCBob Jackson Expert

Rock,

Willing and able.

Bob

17th Apr 2013 13:20 UTCRock Currier Expert

OK Bob, I've added you to the list. As soon as we get a section on mindat devoted to reviewed articles, I expect various authors will be tapping you guys to review and proofread articles.

13th Aug 2013 21:44 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

Hi all,

I have been working on an article on Indian amphiboles. The purpose has been to get an overview of the mineralogy in these rocks to be able to correct the entries (photos and localities) in Mindat. It is just a summary of already published literature; I do not bring anything new to the table.

The main headings in the article are:

- Introduction

- Regional Geology

- Gondites

- Main Rock Forming Minerals of the Gondites

- Amphiboles

- Winchite

- Tirodite

- Juddite

- Summary of confirmed amphibole species

- Conclusions

I would be very pleased if someone would like to look into one or more of the following with me: form, content, readability, formatting and language of the article. I still need to fill in a few more figures, some additional references and I can see myself that there are things that needs to be cleaned up :-)

The introduction of the article goes like this:

" An extremely interesting rock, found by Mr. Howard J. Winch was brought to the Geological Survey Office by Mr. H. Kilburn Scott. The rock, which was found near the deposit of manganese ore at Meghnagar on the Godra-Ratlam Railway, is of a blue colour with a lavender tinge, and to the naked eye is a schist composed of prisms of blue amphibole, averaging a quarter of an inch long, with an interstitial black mineral."

This is the introduction of L.L Fermor's (1904) type description of a new amphibole species, which he named winchite after the finder. Little did he know that Bernard Leake and other scientists more than 70 years later would spend 11 years trying to rediscover the mineral from the same locality. He did however realize the potential for more interesting minerals from these manganese ores. He visited the area and within the next five years published several descriptions of the geology and mineralogy, including the description of several new mineral species, such as "juddite" and "blanfordite".

The mineralogy of the gondites, which was the name Fermor gave to the manganese silicate rocks he found there, has now intrigued mineralogists interested in amphiboles for more than a century. The manganese ores and gondites in the area are considered the type locality for 6 valid minerals, of which 5 are amphiboles. In addition, the now discredited species "juddite"(Fermor 1909) and "tirodite" (Dunn and Roy 1938)was described from this area. During the last 20 years, leakeite group(Hawthorne et.al.1992) and dellaventuraite group( Tait et.al 2005) amphiboles have their type localities here, and a systematic review of already published analyses show that these rocks may still host new species." .

Olav

14th Aug 2013 05:52 UTCRock Currier Expert

Olav,

If one of our volunteers doesn't step forward, Ill send you a list of them and you can pick one or two and ask them go go over your article.

Rock

14th Aug 2013 07:05 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

Thanks Rock

:-)

Olav

14th Aug 2013 08:00 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Olav, I am happy to proofread the article for you, for language and readability, although you might want a mineralogist to check the content. If I can help, send me a PM and I'll send my email address. Becky

14th Aug 2013 10:50 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

Thank you Becky,

I've sent you a PM

Olav

14th Aug 2013 18:13 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Rock, I am having trouble with proofing Olav's article. I am able to access the article, but when I try to correct something, it does not work and I am actually sent out of Mindat! Could you please give me instructions so that I can help with this article? Thanks, Becky

14th Aug 2013 18:53 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

To actually edit the article, Olav has to add you as an editor (last option on the line)

14th Aug 2013 18:58 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

David,

Thank you very much.

Becky,

Sorry for not adding you as an editor, I didn't notice that option. I have added you now, I think....

Thank you for proof reading.

:-)

Olav

14th Aug 2013 19:06 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Yes, she has been added.

14th Aug 2013 19:16 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

David,

Thank You :-)

Another question, can both of us edit the article at the same time?

Olav

14th Aug 2013 19:20 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Not a good idea. We don't automatically merge changes.

14th Aug 2013 19:22 UTCOlav Revheim Manager

Thanks :-)

Olav

14th Aug 2013 22:01 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Olav, I've just returned home - tomorrow morning (UK time) is free for me, and I will complete proofing then. Becky

15th Aug 2013 04:55 UTCEverett Harrington Expert

Rock, once again, if any help needed I can help out, including best minerals..that is...if you need help :) I've had two articles in Rock and Gem, as well as some other items published in local papers.

thanks

Everett

15th Aug 2013 07:42 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Please, can someone help me with this - I am trying to proofread Olav's article, but I'm having the same problem as yesterday - I log in, access the article, but then I am not allowed to make changes. (I am actually sent out of Mindat!) Perhaps I am doing something wrong? Thanks, Becky

19th Aug 2013 09:15 UTCRock Currier Expert

Everett,

If you would like to help with best minerals, pick a mineral that you like, preferably not a "big one" and you can work on writing it up on mindat. Pick one that has not had a thread started about it, and Ill open the thread for that mineral and in the reply box below you can work on the article.

19th Aug 2013 12:40 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Rock, just a note to help anyone who is helping with proofreading, writing, etc. - David von Bargen helped me sort out the problem I was having. You must have the Mindat toolbar activated, otherwise your session can be "timed out" and changes are not saved.

19th Aug 2013 13:40 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Actually the time out is 90 minutes (you have to interact with the mindat server in that time period to keep from getting logged off - ie a page load or refresh). The toolbar queries the server enough to make sure you stay logged in while you have a mindat page in a server tab.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 28, 2024 19:49:21

Go to top of page