Jump to content

Talk:Woodstock Library/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    3 images used

Note: All of the library images uploaded to Commons were taken by myself; hopefully I can find an image of the former building available for use. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Additional comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

  • "The collection moved into a larger facility in 1914 and reached 'full branch status' in 1917". Why is "full branch status" in quotes? Is it a direct quotation or are these scare quotes? If the former it needs to be attributed and if the latter they need to be removed. Same with "reading room", "deposit stations" and several others. And how could a collection reach full branch status?
    • "Full branch status" is the term used by the source, though I am not sure quotation marks are required. Perhaps copyright infringement paranoia is at play. I can remove the quotation marks if you prefer. The source uses "deposit station" with quotation marks; I did as well, both because the term if unfamiliar to readers and because the source used quotation marks. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Either remove the quotation marks around "full branch status" or continue to quote it with a citation. "Deposit station" is probably an unfamiliar term to many, so arguably keep its quotation marks, but with a citation. The same logic doesn't apply to reading room though, and enclosing it in scare quotes very strongly implies that it's not really a reading room, that's just what people call it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to offering the Multnomah County Library catalog, which includes two million books, periodicals and other materials, the branch houses collections in Chinese and Spanish and employs Chinese-speaking staff." So the library only houses a catalog of books? Where are the actual books held then?
  • "... received multiple recognitions for its design". I'm certain nobody would doubt that it was designed, so "recognitions" (a word I've never seen in the plural before) probably isn't the right word here.
  • "In May 1996, Multnomah County voters approved a $28 million bond measure to 'improve technology in all branch libraries and to renovate deteriorating branch libraries'". You have to provide citations for all direct quotations, wherever they appear, even in the lead.

History

  • "In 1918, the Woodstock branch and several others were threatened to close due to a $10 per month salary increase". That just doesn't make sense. "Threatened with closure"? Why was the Woodstock branch being paid a salary anyway?
  • "Over the years the library has hosted numerous activities, clubs, events and programs". Which library are we talking about? The one that was demolished or the current one? If the former then the tense is wrong, and if the latter this material is in the wrong place.
    • Now reads: "Over the years both Woodstock Library buildings have hosted numerous activities..." Better? The sentence ends with a citation referring to the former building, but the sentence also acts as an introduction to a paragraph which includes details about more recent activities hosted by the current building. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't really work, as by this point in the story the original building has been demolished but the new one hasn't yet been built. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, right. I was struggling to determine the best way to organize the article. Perhaps make the "Current building" section a subsection of the history section? I went ahead and made the Current building section a subsection of the History section. I also moved the activities/events/programs paragraph to a new subsection of the History section called "Community role". How do you feel about these changes? I am open to alternative suggestions for "Community role" but I figured it was better than simply Activities or Events or the like... --Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (Note/Reminder: If current article structure is kept, I will be sure to fix the order of references in the Current building section.) --Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems better, but I think the new Community role section should come after the Reception section, as the latter is more naturally following on from the Current building section. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To me the Community role section is relevant to the History section, though I suppose I could be convinced otherwise. Another option might be to eliminate the Reception section and move the reception of the old building to the old building section and move the reception of the current building to the current building section. Personally, I like the current structure but happy to have additional input. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On further reflection, as we're talking about two separate buildings I think it makes sense to split the Critical reception section up as you suggest, which I've been bold and done. That structure looks much more satisfactory to me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I like this structure as well, though technically the Original building, Current building and Community role sections are all still related to the history of the library. Should these be subsections of the History section? Or, should we change the title of the History section to Early history? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The way it was before, everything was a subsection of History, which looked a little odd. I think changing History to Early history, or perhaps even Background, would be a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Early history. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 1920s–1940s the library occupied a series of temporary locations ...". The lead says 1920s–1950s.

Current building

  • "... within less than six months the collection had circulated a total of 3,283 times." One month is less than six months, as is one day, so what information is this really giving us?
  • "... protecting the structure against wind and earthquakes". I think we all understand what wind and earthquakes are, so why the links? What do they add to our understanding of the library?
  • "Most of the library collection and activity are housed within a single large room that is level with the sidewalk outside." You don't "house" activity. and why isn't it "library's collection"?

Community role

  • "The library has also hosted town hall meetings". I'm not quite sure what a "town hall meeting" is. A meeting of the town council?

References

Malleus Fatuorum, thank you so much for your many improvements to this article and for taking the time to offer a thorough review, copyediting, etc. Your assistance is much appreciated and I will continue to address your concerns. I want to be able to present the best possible article to MCL staff and to Wikipedians participating in the upcoming Wikipedia Loves Libraries edit-athon. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from maclean25
  • 1a. "Early history", "it was recognized as a branch library" - what does this mean?
That the collection became an official branch of the Multnomah County Library. The sentence now reads: "later that year it was recognized as a branch of Multnomah County Library". --Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a. "Early history", please clarify what "other economies" means
I am not certain, hence the direct quotation from the source. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know then we should avoid it. maclean (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why do we have to know, as opposed to the author of the quote? Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "other economies" with "funding sources". See discussion below. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a/2b. "clown shows," "mobile zoos," - these are plural. Do we have evidence there was more than one? and the clown show ref is dead.
    Fixed now I think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b. "In May 1996, Multnomah County voters approved a $28 million bond measure to "improve technology in all branch libraries and to renovate deteriorating branch libraries".[2]" - I consider this to be a misleading quote. The reference does not say this is what the ballot measure said (it is what the measure allowed them to do). Either quote what the measure actually said or use your own words.
    The source quite clearly says that the voters "passed" the measure, which is what the article now says. Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, still doesn't work. First, more fundamentally, this quote is unnecessary and therefore shouldn't be used. It isn't saying anything that couldn't be summarized in our own words. Quotes should generally only be used when it is important to capture exactly what the source is saying, like opinions. It's even duplicated in the lead section, which in my opinion violates WP:LEAD's guidance to summarize the article. Second, the sentence structure leads the reader to believe that the ballot measure actually, literally said "improve technology...deteriorating branch libraries" but I see no indication in the reference that that is what the ballot said. It would be more understandable if the sentence said something like "...ballot measure which allowed the MCL to "improve technology...". maclean (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are of course quite wrong, and have clearly forgotten that your job here is to assess the article against the GA criteria; nothing more, nothing less. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer if I claimed it under 1a as unclear prose? maclean (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer you just stopped being an arse. Fail the article, and then we can start again. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just come up with wording that all three of us find appropriate, yes? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted some comments here User:Maclean25/sandbox. -maclean (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments at Maclean25's sandbox. I hope personal matters can be set aside and we can work together to improve this article. Malleus Fatuorum, I believe all of your concerns have been addressed, minus the question re: Chinese-speaking employees. Feel free to respond to my comments above. I can find no additional information about the Chinese population in Woodstock. If there are any other concerns needing to be address, please let me know. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

I am closing the review now. I will close the review on Sunday or Monday. After reviewing the reaction to (what I thought was minor) criticism I think it best to disengage from this review. I started writing this more comprehensive list below with a different reviewing strategy in mind but now I trust this provides sufficient explanation and justification on why the article should not pass now:

  • 1a. Still some odd parts where unclear prose makes it difficult to understand what it being said:
    • What is the connection between the fire station branch library and the "The Woodstock collection, housed within a public school"? why is the collection separate from the library?
    • "the collection had circulated a total of 3,283 times" - the entire collection circulated that many times? or individual items within the collection did?
    • "but "other economies" helped" - what? (and, as noted above, 'because someone else said it' is a pathetic answer. You are, shockingly enough, responsible for what you write.)
  • 1b. The lead should only be a summary of the article but this version has awkward spots where it gets too specific. Some items seem to be just copy-and-pasted from the body. For an article this size, WP:LEAD suggests a one-to-two paragraph lead section.
  • 2b. There is inappropriate use of copyrighted material in the article trying to use citation as an excuse. It sometimes seems like random parts were copy-and-pasted and only slightly altered. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. Examples:
    • "...bond measure to "improve technology in all branch libraries and to renovate deteriorating branch libraries". - as I said above, unless this is what the ballot measure actually said, it is an unnecessary and inappropriate use of copyrighted material. Summarize source material in your own words.
    • "important part of the neighborhood".[1] - really? according the library's website, the library was an important part of the neighborhood?
    • As much of the "Early history" section relies mostly one source, there are instances of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing between the article and the source:
      • "On May 16, 1911, the Woodstock deposit station was replaced by a “sub-branch” library"
      • On May 16, 1911, the Woodstock deposit station was replaced by a sub-branch library
      • "were forced to close from November 1 to November 16, 1918, in an effort to stop the spread of a flu pandemic."
      • were forced to close between November 1 and 16 in an effort to stop the influenza pandemic.
      • "From the 1970s through the mid-1990s, the building continued to receive routine maintenance and refurbishing, including repairs after a minor fire."
      • The library received regular maintenance and refurbishment from the 1970s through the mid-1990s, including repairs following a small fire. - this just re-arranged the phrases of the sentence.
      • "In May 1996, Multnomah County voters passed a $28 million general obligation bond measure to"
      • In May 1996, Multnomah County voters passed a $28 million bond measure to -maclean (talk)

Comment: I am sorry to see this review closed without being provided enough time to address these concerns. That being said, I respect your decision and will re-nominate the article. Take care. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often prefer to just ignore nasty interactions (possibly a bad habit) and focus on the content, so why not try that here? It's not inconceivable that Maclean25 will reconsider the close if there is progress on the issues they have raised. As such, I've made several tweaks in the wording to address the issues raised (which I mostly agree with), hopefully explained in the edit summaries - what do you (all) think? Three outstanding issues I see:
  • yeah, that "other economies" bit is a problem. If it was a specific author, we could say "described by Jack Spratt as...", but it is from a blurby website. We should find a better way to word it or drop it I think - the reliance on that one source for so much of the article is a weakness here.
  • "important part of the neighbourhood" - I agree we shouldn't breathlessly copy the blurb, but can this be reworded to just simply state why it was important - or is it needed at all, isn't a generic property of all libraries that they are important parts of their localities?
  • "deposit station" and "sub-branch library", unquoted now, are described adequately in the body, but awkwardly in the lede - why does it look so close to identical to Early history? Could these go back to quoted in the lede, with the explanation excised, followed by the full exposition in the next section? In any case, I think the text duplication needs to be addressed.
Whatever you decide, good luck going forward! :) Franamax (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, thank you for your contributions to this article. At this point, I believe most of the concerns raised by all three reviewers have been addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodstock_Library/GA1&oldid=1030713098"