User talk:Khal94/sandbox

Working Bibliography McCormick, Richard L. "Raised at Rutgers: A President's Story." (2014): Books at JSTOR, EBSCOhost (accessed February 20, 2018).

(This one might be more of a jumping-off point): Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries. 2016, Vol. 68 Issue 2, piii-V. 3p.

For Newark campus history: Wechsler, Harold S. 2010. "Brewing bachelors: the history of the University of Newark." Paedagogica Historica 46, no. 1/2: 229-249. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 20, 2018).

Khaled's Sources- I wanted to focus on slavery connection with Rutgers in some way. Hence my sources.

1) Fuentes, Marisa J., and Deborah Gray White, eds. Scarlet and Black: Slavery and Dispossession in Rutgers History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016.

2) Frusciano, Thomas J. "A Historical Sketch of Rutgers University". Retrieved from https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/scua/rutgers-historical-sketch

Courtney's Sources

1) Wilder, Craig Steven. "Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities". New York, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2013.

2) McCormick, Richard P. "Rutgers: A Bicentennial History". New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1966.

Jenny - Suggested Secondary Sources:

1) GIGANTINO, JAMES J. ""The Whole North Is Not Abolitionized": Slavery's Slow Death in New Jersey, 1830–1860." Journal of the Early Republic 34, no. 3 (2014): 411-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24486906.

2) Pickersgill, Harold E., and John P. Wall. History of Middlesex County, New Jersey, 1664-1920. New York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co., 1921. https://archive.org/details/historymiddlese00pickgoog. from New York Public Library collections

Dante - Sources

1) James Gigantino, Ragged Road to Abolition Linuxman97 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sid's - Sources

1) Blakley, Boyd, Carey,. "Old Money". Scarlet and Black: Slavery and Dispossession in Rutgers History Chapter 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016.

Khal94 (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Article evaluation: History of Rutgers University

Article has succinct relevant sections. A well sized intro, considering the overall length of the full article. Each sections is relatively similar in length. When I click the talk page I am directed to another wiki page, with more information on Rutgers, and the grading of the article. But it mentions what else needs to be added.

The way Wikipedia describes this Rutgers History is very mechanical, rather than persuasive. We discussed it also in terms of how things should be presented, what should be included etc, with value judgments. The references still work, and a lot of it is online. It also has links to other pages of relevance, like one dedicated to Queen's College. I tried to find the terms 'slave', or 'black' and could not find it. Perhaps adding in Rutgers connection to slavery, and how slaveholders helped to save the college would be helpful and bring it in line with the Scarlet and Black project.

For the Linuxman97 section, it felt almost mechanical. Within each sentence there is not anything transitioning the paragraphs to the next sentence, to the point that it felt like a series of random sentences jammed together with no cohesion. After that, we get to the list, and even then never really provided any details on the lives of those slave owners and their interactions with their respective slaves. I am not saying you write entire paragraphs for each of those slave owners and their slaves, but you should provide at least three to four sentences each to describe them in detail. The Courtney section was as lengthy and detailed as it needed to be, though the length managed to decline with the Khalad section, followed by the Manan section. Rdz820 and Sid's sections were as well-written as they needed to be, though, most particularly Sid's, which needed to be as lengthy as detailed as it needed to be.--Commander PonyShep (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Commander PonyShep with the Linuxman97 section being a little unorganized. It does seem like there is a lack of a focus and is instead random facts thrown in together but I think with a little more transitionary phrases and fleshing out the section a little more, this is a good base to start off on. One other thing I would say also is to refrain from telling a story but instead focus on the facts, as that is the way Wikipedia should be and to organize those facts in a way that all pertain to the article you are working on. Micol5 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The initial foundation of your research seems solid. That said, there were issues of transitions which will be necessary to figure out when fleshing them out for the article proper. Likewise, the list of prominent slaveowners in the history of Old Queens may need to be pared down or condensed to its most obvious constituent parts so that it does not jam up the flow of the article. It may be useful in this sense to mention those families most prominently associated with the campus and surrounding community through legacy naming-- such as the Frelinghuysens, Hardenberghs and Neilsons. Remember to cite sources properly when formatting for the page and keep any text free of grammatical errors, inconsistencies or general awkward phrasing. / As a more specific note-- the information about the Morrill Act is good, but ask Professor Bayker about its relevancy to your page specifically. In our group's case it was more pertinent to focus on the lives of African Americans within our pages edits, it may be the same in your case. It will likely help in condensing your information down to its best possible format, at least within the context of this project. Timjod (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Courtney, there is definitely a good bit of bulk to your edit, which is a good thing. I also think that the way that you are wording this edit. It makes it feel like a very natural way to introduce topics of disenfranchisement into an article that many people wouldn’t think would have them.

Khaled, the edit that you’re proposing here is definitely very educational and substantial, however I don’t know how relevant the bulk of it may be to the topic of the article. The first sentence is definitely relevant to Queen’s college, but the rest of it seems like it is describing The Great Awakening more than it is describing how it is relevant to the article’s topic.

Manan, I feel like there’s definitely a lot more you can do with this edit. After naming them all you could go on to talk about the men that you are specifically naming.

Sid, both of these edits are pretty substantial and well thought out. The second edit about the trustee donations seems like very vital information to have on that article, so it’s a good thing that info is finally getting put there. Christian.CBC (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

My team is editing wikipedia article called History of Rutgers University

Bibliography Wiki: User:Khal94/sandbox- Wiki Bibliography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khal94 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

June Titus: Peer Review:

Pretty much everyone did a great job with embedding further Wikipedia articles into the additions that were made. The writing is concise and informative. In Manan's post I think that the writing could be expanded so that there wouldn't be so many parenthesis in the writing. In the Under Queen's College Section, the sources need to be embedded into the article. And for the second half of the edits more Wikipedia articles could be embedded into the page, including the New Brunswick article or the History of Slavery in New Jersey article. Junetitus (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)