Talk:Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey/GA2
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 01:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks neat. I'll review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lead
- "The museum was established in the same year" - not a big deal but as the previous sentence gives two years, this could be seen as ambiguous
- I think the lead needs to be expanded to cover more of the article's scope
- Speaking of scope, since the article discusses the Rutgers Geology Museum as well as the building, the museum should be bolded in the lead and perhaps emphasized slightly more
- History
- Not sure para 1 needs to lead with the 1872 founding, it feels a bit confusing to be told one date and then go immediately back to the 1830s.
- Can we get slight context for Lewis Caleb Beck? (Even just a single word "geologist Lewis Caleb Beck" is fine)
- Para 3 sentence 1 feels like it's reading out of order, going from Henry to Jacob back to Henry - it would be tidier to put the clause about "the architect selected" first, I think, then you're going from Henry to Jacob cleanly.
- Context for Albert Huntington Chester?
- Architecture
- Section feels kind of skimpy compared to the fairly robust history section
- I see why it's here given that it's transitioning off the mention of the armory, but theft of muskets feels like it belongs in the history section
- I wonder if Architecture should be moved up ahead of History, which would allow the armory to be mentioned in History without surprising the user
- Everything else
- This is a total nitpick but I'm not sure Books and Articles needs a separate section under sourcing given that only one item in the bibliography falls outside it
- Commons:Category:Geology Hall (Rutgers) has some interesting images, this shot of the interior in particular: File:Rutgers-geology-interior_01.png
Overall it's a well-written article that just needs some tweaks. Feel free to discuss if you don't agree with suggested changes. No concerns about sourcing reliability/source-text integrity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)