- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Geology Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator(s): ColonelHenry and Tomwsulcer 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last few months, I've taken this article from start to GA, and asked Tom to take some photos of the museum the next time he was in town. He went above and beyond (and is incredibly humble about it), and his photos have made a significant difference to this article for readers. So, I've asked him if he would join me as co-nominator (it will be his first time at FAC) because I believe his contribution deserves to be recognized.
This article is about Geology Hall, the sixth building built at Rutgers University. Designed by a well known architect, Henry Janeway Hardenbergh (known for NYC's Plaza Hotel), and built in 1872, the facility housed some science department offices, but is better known (then and today) for its geology museum featuring exhibits on the geology and natural history of New Jersey. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN4: is there to be something after that, or are we just missing a parenthesis?
Good piece of work. Leaning heavily to support, but a few thoughts below: adopt or ignore as you will. I'm not too knowledgeable on AmEng usage, so apologies for any obviously stupid things below:
History
- "Six years later, in 1870"
- Reply: - Going out on a limb here...I presume you mean removing the comma after 1870? If so, done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops: apologies, for some reason this was only half completed. What I meant was that a line or so before you told us it was 1864, so either "six years later" or "in 1870" are fine, but both seem to be repetitive. Perhaps just "In 1870"? Your call as it's not a deal-breaker and it won't change my support. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - left "Six years later,..." removed "in 1870". --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the trustees commissioned a design for "a Geological Hall"...": do we need the scare quotes?
- "2013: US$1,215,365.62" Firstly I'm not sure we need the US (you've already mentioned the currency just beforehand, and it's a US building); I'm not sure we need the precision of 62c either?
- Reply: - I mentioned "US$" to avoid any potential confusion over other "dollars" -- something I tend to do when adding inflation figures. In previous articles, I've had foreign users ask what I was converting, so in the vein of "better safe than sorry" I provide that distinction and avoid a situation that forces a reader to assume. I removed the 62c from the adjustment figure. The original amount listed cents, so I'll keep that precision for the original figure but will remove it for the inflation adjustment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Geology Hall's first floor provided the college with rooms for laboratory and lecture instruction, and housed the college's armory.[1]:p.101 The second floor was designed to accommodate a geological museum.[1]:p.101 The first-floor classrooms would house ..." May be worth having the two first floor mentions together before moving onto the second floor?
- Fixed - Revised accordingly. I hope that makes the flow more logical.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers Geology Museum
- "to commit toward continuing": is that right in AmEng? It's "towards" in BrEng, but I'll leave it to you.
- Done - In AmEng, either "toward" or "towards" is acceptable. And despite an occasional lapse, I usually use towards. I'll add an "s" given my respect for BrEng over AmEng.--ColonelHenry (talk)
Nice article and will will be happy to support shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All good as far as I'm concerned! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, informative article but I think the prose could be tightened up.
- Who erected the building? Was it the president of the college, vice-president George H. Cook, or someone from the board of trustees? One of the major facts about any historic building, I don't see it mentioned in the article.
- Reply: none of the sources that I've found or that are readily available name the builder/contractor who was responsible for construction. They name Campbell and Cook regarding the effort to build it (funds, idea), the trustees approving it, and Hardenbergh designing it, but none mention the guy who did the work. I bet if I dug deep in the University Archives I might find it, but right now that's would take a lot of time, travel, and effort just to add a few words.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word: Compare this sentence "As part of the Queen's Campus, Geology Hall was included on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places in 1973." from the intro with "In 1973, Geology Hall was included with six other buildings on Rutgers' Queen's Campus on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places the National Register of Historic Places." from the body. I think you are missing an "and" in the second sentence.
- The first part of this sentence could be shortened: "Rutgers president William H. Campbell raised funds to construct a building to accommodate this expansion, and Geology Hall, designed by architect Henry Janeway Hardenbergh, was built in 1872." I don't think the fundraising aspect deserves more words than the design and construction of the building.
- Reply: - I don't see a problem with this, and think the two parts are appropriately balanced (14 for funds (15 including "H.") 13 for design and construction). I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mixed tenses: "The museum, which is among the oldest collegiate geology collections in the United States, was founded by..." I think "The museum, one of the oldest..." sounds better and doesn't mix tenses.
- Choice of words: "Its exhibits emphasize the natural history of New Jersey, geology, paleontology, and anthropology...". Isn't a word like "showcase" more visual than "emphasize", appropriate for describing a museum display? Don't the exhibits "encompass" the fields of "natural history, geology, paleontology and anthropology", they don't emphasize all of them, do they?
- Repetitive use of the word "to": "Pursuant to the Morrill Act of 1862, this designation gave the state federal lands to sell to raise money to develop..."
- Add a few explanatory words: "George Hammell Cook (1818-1889), a professor of chemistry and natural sciences, influenced the state to..." I'm guessing he was capable of influencing the state because he was highly respected?
- Reply - it is the nature of a participatory republic that any citizen can influence his elected representatives--whether they are big or small. I think my discussion on Cook career offered in this passage adequately explains his importance and the platform on which he was able to "influence". I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have joined dependent clauses (no subject) with ", and". Is this correct in American English? Eg:
- ", and turned down the post of president in 1840"
- ", and housed the college's armory"
- Restrictive vs unrestrictive: "Completed in 1872 at a cost of US$63,201.54 (2013: US$1,215,365), Geology Hall's first floor". Make it clear the building was completed in 1872. Talk about the first floor in a separate sentence.
- Restrictive vs unrestrictive: "Today, Geology Hall houses offices of the university's administration and the Rutgers Geology Museum" Do you mean "houses offices" (some) or "houses the offices" (all)?
- Plural noun: "The museum's collections, of which only a small portion is on display," Change "is" to "are".
- Reply and other fix: - is is tied to the singular portion within the clause and is correct; feature is tied to the plural collections (and had to be changed from features).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make sense: "The museum's earliest collections began to coalesce in the 1836"
- Reply: - "Coalesce" = bring together to form one mass or whole; commingle; to blend or come together; mix together different elements. Do you have a suggestion for a better way of stating this? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unwieldy sentence: "Many of the exhibits feature items that are unique to New Jersey, including Native American artifacts, minerals, and fossils, including a set of fossilized dinosaur tracks believed to belong to the carnivorous Grallator,..." You should separate list items with a semicolon, eg "Many of the exhibits feature items that are unique to New Jersey: Native American artifacts; minerals; fossils, including a set of fossilized dinosaur tracks believed to belong to the carnivorous Grallator; ..."
- Break into separate paragraph: "The mastodon, found in a marl pit near Mannington, was sold by a local farmer to a travelling circus before it was acquired by Rutgers for display." If the mastodon was an attraction while it belonged to the travelling circus you should mention that. Are mastodon skeletons rare?
- Reply: - Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS a one-sentence or two-sentence paragraph would be too short to standalone. Mastodon skeletons are not rare, as far as I know, since I can name a few museums in the NYC metro area that have at least one. As for the travelling circus, I could only assume it was on display, BUT the sources don't go into detail of it being put on display, only that it was sold to a travelling circus. I cannot go beyond what the source indicates.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing a hyphen: "The museum displays a 2,400-year old" Change "2400-year old" to "2400-year-old".
- Repetitive: "The mummy ... was discovered in Northern Egypt and brought back to the United States by a Dutch Reformed missionary who served in Egypt in the early 1700s.". Change "who served in Egypt" to "who served there".
- Preposition: "planning to place the museum's exhibits in permanent storage". I think "place ... into ... storage" is correct, instead of "place in".
- Reply - After checking Oxford, Webster and Collins, I don't see a difference denotatively--and usage is indicated as correct either as in or into some place since expressing the situation of being enclosed or surrounded by something; expressing movement that results in being enclosed or surrounded by something. Storage would be one of those "somethings". I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word: "close the museum". Shouldn't that be "close down" or "shut down" to imply it's permanent?
- Reply - "close" is an entirely appropriate idiom according to several dictionaries. The previous clause mentioned putting the exhibits in "permanent storage" which prefaces the nature of the closure. I don't consider this actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Word choice: "A letter-writing campaign from alumni and the general public successfully convinced". I think "persuaded" is better than "successfully convinced".
Ottre 01:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ottre, for dropping in to review. I appreciate your help. I'll hope to address your concerns and suggestions within the next day or so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TO FAC COORDINATORS: I contacted Ottre to inform him/her that I addressed the comments above,[2] however, I notice by the user's contributions that Ottre has only had three edits in 2014, two of which were at this FAC--and only 14 edits in the last two years[3]...so I do not expect Ottre to come back to review my responses herewith to his/her comments. Please take this into account and consider that I have made an good faith attempt to address Ottre's comments adequately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...to expand its curriculum to include science and agriculture education. - hmm, I know it's neat but looks a bit funny to my eyes....I think I'd say " to expand its curriculum to include [teaching/courses] in science and agriculture." or somesuch
- Done - went with your suggestion, used "include instruction".--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
Its exhibits showcase the natural history of New Jersey, geology, paleontology, and anthropology and include fluorescent zinc minerals from Franklin and Ogdensburg, a mastodon from Salem County, a dinosaur trackway discovered in Towaco, and a Ptolemaic era Egyptian mummy. - would a colon be better after "natural history of New Jersey" as what is coming after is alist of things belonging to that object?
- Done semi-colon added, created a dependent clause re: geology/paleontology/anthropology, and created a new sentence with the second half of the sentence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardenbergh and the trustees agreed that building with brick would be too expensive -- "building with brick" --> "this material" (avoids two bricks...)
The museum's earliest collections began to coalesce in the 1836 -....err "the 1836"?
- Not thrilled about the gallery, but concede there is alot of nice visual material and don't feel strongly enough for it to be a deal-breaker. Ideally the section on exhibits could be longer to incorporate some of this material in hte body of the text....
- Reply" I could increase the material on exhibits by going into detail on some of the items (since some have generated some literature in journals), but I wanted to err on the good side of WP:SUMMARY. Tom provided a lot of visual material with the collection of photographs and since there were only so many opportunities to use them in text, I thought a gallery would put them to good use. I've never really been thrilled about galleries (since many are badly executed), but I would rather show Tom's great photographs and a gallery serves that aim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Casliber: - I think I've addressed your concerns above, please review my responses to see if they suffice and if you see additional things needing to be addressed. I appreciate your help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, tentative support on prose and possibly comprehensiveness. I can't see anything else to improve unequivocally and do not know enough to be hugely confident some notable tidbit has been missed, but if the consensus is that it hasn't then I think we're over the line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative support on the basis of characteristically elegant prose and attention to detail. However I do feel like one or two of the gallery photos could be eliminated without much loss (do we really need two views of the staircase?) and it could be made clearer when/why the classrooms for the physics, military science, and--especially--geology departments were moved. Shoebox2 talk 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'll think about the second staircase photo, but I disagree that removing photos is necessary.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was necessary, only that some photos seemed more relevant than others. :) These are lovely photos, and I can understand why you'd be reluctant to leave any out. Shoebox2 talk 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: It is my understanding that the military science department was phased out with the WWII training programmes (i.e. V-12, etc.), and then transitioned into the ROTC programmes post-WWII; further that as the university expanded, first at the turn of the 20th century and then after WWII, the various science departments moved as other buildings were built. The physics department moved to the Busch campus (which was developed for all the math/sciences/engineering depts, etc.) in the 1960s, and geology later. However, there's little that says exactly that, therefore, no source = cannot be included. I'll look, but I had looked before and wasn't successful in finding anything for that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough, it's not an essential piece of the article. Confirming support. Shoebox2 talk 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note[edit]
- Anyone review image licensing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image licences:
- File:Rutgers-geology-exterior.png - an 'own work', seems fine.
- File:Cook,gh.jpg - subject of photo died 1889, which means even if it had not previously been published, it would meet the US criterion of "120 years from date of creation". So licence appears sound.
- File:Rutgers University Geology museum stone tools exhibit.JPG and all subsequent images - 'own works', not portraying art works or other copyright items, seem fine.
All looks OK to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.