A company that makes steel (Cleveland-Cliffs) decided to charge more money for their products, starting right away. Another company that also works with coal (Ramaco Resources) said they made a lot of money last three months and the whole year. These are some important news from the mining industry on Friday. Read from source...

1. The article title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that there are multiple mining stories worth mentioning on Friday, but only provides information about two companies, Cleveland-Cliffs and Ramaco Resources. A more accurate title would be "Cleveland-Cliffs Increases Spot Prices; Ramaco Resources Reports Financial Results: Two Mining Stories for Friday".
2. The article does not provide any context or background information on the mining industry, the companies involved, or the reasons behind the price changes and financial results. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the significance and implications of these events. A better approach would be to include some historical data, market trends, and expert opinions in the article.
3. The article uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "effective immediately" and "record quarter". These phrases do not convey any specific or measurable information about the companies' actions or performance. A more precise and clear language would be to use dates, numbers, and percentages instead. For example, "Cleveland-Cliffs hikes prices for carbon steel products by 10%, starting from March 8, 2024" and "Ramaco Resources reports $58.5M EBITDA in Q4 2023, a 25% increase from Q4 2022".
4. The article fails to mention any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence the companies' decisions or the author's opinions. For instance, does Cleveland-Cliffs have any competitors or partners that are affected by their price changes? Does Ramaco Resources have any ongoing lawsuits or disputes that may impact their financial results? Are the authors affiliated with any of these companies or organizations in any way? These questions should be addressed and disclosed to maintain credibility and transparency.
5. The article lacks any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation of the data and information provided. It merely reports the facts without offering any insights or perspectives on what they mean for the companies, the industry, or the market. A more valuable addition would be to include some charts, graphs, or tables that show the trends and comparisons of the relevant metrics over time or with other competitors. Also, some expert opinions or quotes from company representatives would add credibility and depth to the article.