Talk:Pahaquarry Copper Mine

Assessment notes
I have assessed this as Start Class for a few minor reasons. I would probably call this a C-Class article except for these items:
 * Duplicate entries in the Bilbliography and Further reading sections
 * The sections seem to be in an unusual order - History, then Geology, then Legends would make more sense to me

It's a good article, and I learned from reviewing it. I only make the suggestions above as ideas for improvement. I would have gone ahead with changes, but list based references are not in my skill set. I find them incredibly difficult to work with, and I am always worried about removing the wrong duplicate that may be needed.  Jim Miller  See me 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs: Forgot to sign. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wider list of references (for instance, no mention of history as reported by Decker, Stickney, Hine, Snell).
 * Discussion of the substance of folk tales regarding Dutch miners and why they are incorrect.
 * Better discussion of the history of the mines
 * Look at the mine today
 * photographs.
 * See also - Old Mine Road, DWGNRA, counties, various related historical information