Talk:Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Can you link mastodon and Ptolemaic, out of all those were the two I'd most want to click!
 * Done - I thought I had linked them but then realised I had only linked the later in the article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * History
 * "Courses in agriculture, chemistry and engineering was also provided Hall for several years" provided Hall?
 * Done - Revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems a big jump from late 19th century to today. Is there nothing at all available on 20th century history?
 * Reply - I agree, but oddly, I haven't been able to find anything. What I've been able to find is a pattern in most of the histories (books, webpages, archives) at Rutgers where discussing something being built, or getting started and anything between isn't mentioned until there is a change in the status quo. I haven't discovered any activity in the 20th century anything except for (a) it's still a museum upstairs, and (b) the geology department offices moved across the river, after other offices/classroom space moved elsewhere much earlier.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rutgers
 * "This collection consists of rare minerals, many of which are found only in New Jersey, were discovered during nineteenth- and twentieth-century zinc mining operations in Franklin and Ogdensburg in Sussex County." "such as those discovered during" would fit better here.
 * Done - Revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

this might contain something useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks for pointing me to this resource. When I get a little time later this afternoon, I'll see what I can glean and use.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's some good sources in google books but most of them aren't available sadly...♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books is a great resource, although I've found that several of the sources repeat what earlier sources already had. Much like Roman historians copying earlier historians verbatim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

It would be good if you could find more on the 20th century history but I think this is a decent overview.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)