Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my home collection is sorted by Dewey, my mother worked at a library (albeit dealing with periodicals), I work at GLAM institution (albeit an archives), and I'm sitting in a library, so it's sort of inevitable that I'll choose this article to review! -- Zanimum (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I also should tag User:LaMona who did most of the work on this article. I'll be happy to answer any questions/concerns you may have! SPat ^talk 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FYI, there is one sentence in the article that is unsourced, and I am inclined to remove it. It gives an example of how some aspects of a topic may be located at distant points in the classification. However, this is true for any classification that allows only one place per item, so it is a characteristic of single-point classifications in general, not of Dewey. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's your call what way to proceed. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Early development (1873–1885)", "Forging an identity", both pass.

Period of adoption (1885–1942)

"in 1930 the Library of Congress began to print" is the first reference to that institution, so some sort of wikilinking to LC or LCC would be appropriate for international readers.

Sorry I've not been on top of this quicker, I've been blitzing a couple other GANs. But I'm back! -- Zanimum (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Hello to you both! Thanks for reviewing this article, Zanimum, and thanks to LaMona and Spat for your edits to this quite notable article. It's really pleasing to see these quite relevant topics being proposed for GA nomination. I hope you don't mind, Zanimum, if I chime in with a quick comment (I'm supposed to be on wiki-break, but I couldn't help myself!) that there appear to be some issues with references on this article. Some paragraphs aren't sourced (listed here):

"Editions 3-14, published between 1888 and 1942, used a variant of this same title."
"but Cutter's classification was not as fully developed as Dewey's."
"The first electronic version of Dewey was created in 1993. Although hard copy editions continue to be issued at intervals, the online WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey are updated continuously."

Secondly, some of the sources that are provided as URLs don't have an access date or full citation provided. Lastly, there doesn't appear to be any mention of criticism of the current system as it is used currently. However I've done only a brief skim and will leave the review to your capable hands! I wish you all well, --LT910001 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments! Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I just re-did some of the reference formatting to include publisher and accessdate information. I'll need to visit my university library to address your other points, which I will try to do soon. Thanks again, SPat ^talk 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I had lot of real-life work last week. However, I think I have addressed your points, namely, I've added references to those three paragraphs and have included a paragraph on criticism (unfortunately, I don't have access to Comaromi's book, and hence have had to re-word some passages). Do let me know if you have any further comments. Sorry for the delay! SPat ^talk 03:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, my concerns have been addressed. --LT910001 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have Comaromi, so I could source any facts that are lacking a citation. Also, I wonder why there is a need for current criticism? I could try to find some, but in fact it's not a much discussed matter at the moment. Being about 150 years old, what could be said pro and con has pretty much been said. Did you have particular issues in mind? LaMona (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is tagged for a second opinion request. What exactly is the second opinion needed on? Wizardman 16:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wizardman, I am guessing that this is because (Zanimum) hasn't contributed to the review in about a month, but I am not sure as I did not request the second opinion. --LT910001 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that someone could review the content added in response to LT910001's requests. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]