This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Mining Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article sounds like it is written by a stock promoter as a promotional piece. See Wikipedia:BFAQ. --KenWalker | Talk 04:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 5.4 billion dollar company (what would that make it one of the 10 largest in BC ?) 1.6 million search results, and no wikipedia page. if deleting the article because the facts are too appealing, is an option then wikipedia is in trouble. it was a bit excessive before the recent edits but the page was just created and I have provided many sources, and a lot of core facts about the company (production numbers are important because the company is just starting to take off) are included and difficult to find anywhere on the internet at one location. the cost per ounce of gold production in many cases limits gold production (since prices fluctuate and higher costs make it more undesirable). The company has basically doubled in value over the last year (2.9 billion last year 5.4 billion today)[1]it wouldn't be fair to the people seeking information about the company to not include some reference to growth rates, so I don't count the details in the production section against the tone of the article.Grmike (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

they change daily so any source is going to give a number that's accurate for only one day, one reason why it's hard to find sources that list it. the forbes global 2000 list is the only one I know of but the company has to be very large to have its information listed there. the figures given on Largest gold companies have been updated at some point during the last couple weeks so the general ranking of them based on market value, is accurate.Grmike (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

As a follow up to the templates I posted on the page earlier, here are some things I noticed that probably contributed to the tags I chose.

• All three body sections are formatted as bulleted lists (I am writing this with only a mild sense of duality). These should be changed to prose.
• Use of the word "flagship" probably made me mindful of advertising. So did the general "feel" of the history section (conversion to prose would help here too).
• The main reason for the peacock template was the unreferenced phrase "most important project in Ghana outside Chirano." I think this should be removed unless it can be directly quoted from a good third party source.

I think it is generally harder for a mining company to sound unlike an advertising spiel, since the work they do is so practical and can only really be described in a way that sounds like they are a product being sold. General cleanup to reduce the reliance on financial performance figures would help. Jminthorne (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're right about that, many of the other mining companies have 'sounds like advertisement' or 'neutrality problem' templates on their articles. many of the ones that don't at some time did have a problem with it.Grmike (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

The article still relies on primary sources, such as press releases written by the company itself. An example is this, which is the press release from the company on its results. As a quoted $5Bn company, this is probably fairly reliable, but it would be good to find a reliable secondary source which has digested this information for us. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

found another source making it 5.8 billion dollars red back mining has a suitor.Grmike (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

One consequence is the overweighting of recent events such as the last report and accounts. Compare Microsoft, which is widely edited. This has far more about company structure and does not rely heavily on the latest results statement, which would become dated in a year anyway. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's a larger company that has been around longer and is reported on more than Red Back Mining.Grmike (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

A lot would be solved by stripping out the more dubious sources too. Share tip and company websites are of dubious quality compared with more solid journalism. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because the company isn't a major one, sources for third party information aren't as easy to find. some of the sources used here I think are necessary to keep.Grmike (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

third party sources have said that the company's main mines are not operating at full capacity yet (a couple references in the introduction). the company sold 10 percent of itself a couple days ago for money that it and the invester intend to put into those 2 mines. If anyone doesn't agree with the template removal just remove the links to the sources you don't like and the estimates from the production section. the first template makes the whole article seem more biased/unreliable than it is. for mining companies any data from the last couple years is going to come from the company itself, and most of the people visiting these articles are going to have some interest in recent data.Grmike (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]