User:JPKnight1997/sandbox

Article Evaluation

The article being evaluated is NIMBY

1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article is, by and large relevant. However, I think that too much time was spent describing the various synonyms for NIMBY. The author could have presented them only as a list, or perhaps more concisely described them. By going into that much detail in the multitude of different names used for NIMBYs, the meaning becomes somewhat diluted. Furthermore, the article appears to repeat itself on the rationale of those who are classified as NIMBYs. Separate sections, I feel, were not needed for "Claimed Rationale" and "Points of Debate". They could have been grouped into the same section and would have made for a far more concise article.

2) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article attempts neutrality, but in multiple areas I find that the contributor expresses personal disdain for the concept of NIMBYism. A sentence in the opening paragraph, "The NIMBY concept may also be applied to people who advocate some proposal (e.g., budget cuts, tax increases, layoffs, immigration or energy conservation) but oppose implementing it in a way that might affect their lives or require any sacrifice on their part," is one example, though this may be a matter of perception. However, overall, the article does present both sides of the debate in an unbiased manner, focusing more on the argument of the NIMBYism movement, and specific examples of NIMBYism in practice.

3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

In the "Examples" section, there appears to be a bit of a bias towards Western countries. It may simply be a difficulty in finding examples, but some more instances of NIMBYism in Asia or South America would give a wider understanding of the topic.

4) Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Of the citations I checked, the links do work properly. However, I do have to call into question the citation used to describe the origin of the term. The article claims that the Oxford dictionary places the first usage of the term in 1980, however the citation used is from a website called "Word Spy". While it does support this claim, it is unknown if this particular website is verifiable or not. It leads one to wonder why they did not simply cite the Oxford Dictionary Website.

5) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

There are a few instances where statements have no citations behind them. Rather egregiously, many of the examples of developments likely to attract NIMBY attention listed in the "Claimed Rationale" section do not have any citation supporting them, nor do the claims made at the end of the same section. This also occurs in the "Examples" section, where it is arguably even more important that every statement be sourced. However, with a few exceptions, the citations that are actually made come from reputable sources. However, bias is an issue in many of the citations, in which NIMBYs are painted very much as the enemy. These biases do not appear to be noted in the article.

6) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information appears to be up-to-date. The only thing that could be added would be more examples of NIMBY actions. Additionally, it also seems to be a bit of an omission to not include examples of what localities are doing to combat NIMBYism, such as SB 34 here in California.

7) Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

This topic garnered extensive discussion on its talk page. The majority of the discussion appears to be concerned with what defines a NIMBY, in order to make the article more focused, as well as suggestions for additional examples to be added to the article. In a few instances examples appear to have been removed, because of a lack of relevance.

8) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as a "Start," meaning while it can stand on its own unlike a stub, it is still in the early stages, and requires a great deal more work before it can be considered a complete article. This applies not only to the amount of information presented, but also to how it is formatted and organized.

The NIMBY article is part of the Urban Studies and Planning, architecture, and Environment WikiProjects

9) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

In class, when we discuss NIMBYism, we usually discuss it as an adversary, something for us to circumvent and overcome. Rarely if ever do we consider it to be a valid viewpoint. Seeing it presented in a neutral standpoint has made it clear we have a tendency to be rather high-and-mighty when referring to NIMBYs, rather than attempting to understand their perspective. While reading the article has by no means changed my overall views on NIMBYism, it did bring me down to Earth a bit.

North Hollywood Branch (DRAFT)

North Hollywood Branch Library, Los Angeles
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument No. 302
North Hollywood Branch, 2008
Location	5211 N. Tujunga Ave., North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California
Coordinates	34.1657°N 118.3794°W / 34.1657; -118.3794
Built	1930
Architect	Weston & Weston
Architectural style	Mediterranean Revival
MPS	Los Angeles Branch Library System TR
NRHP reference No.	87001018
LAHCM No.	302
Significant dates
Added to NRHP	May 19, 1987
Designated LAHCM	June 27, 1986

North Hollywood Branch, also known as Amelia Earhart Branch, is a branch library of the Los Angeles Public Library located in the North Hollywood section of Los Angeles, California. It was built in 1930 based on a Mediterranean Revival design by architects Weston & Weston. It has moved twice and gone through two major renovations since it's founding.

Architecture

The North Hollywood Branch is a single story building, featuring a double roof of red tile. The upper roof hangs over a clerestory, with seven windows placed over the main entrance of the building. These windows are framed by a pair of coat-of-arms belonging to the family of poet Sidney Lanier. The lower roof is supported by cement columns, hangs over office space, as well as a patio leading to the main entrance. The library's main doors lead into a

The interior of the library, meanwhile, features an open-beamed ceiling, and a large fireplace. Written over this in tile are the words, "I am a small-winged bird, but I can conquer the world," by Lanier. The chimneys for this fireplace are located on the south side of the upper roof. The main circulation desk is placed in the center of the building.

All later additions to the library utilized the same building materials wherever possible, and made efforts to retain the overall style of the original structure.

History

Founding and Renaming

The North Hollywood Branch library began as the Lankershim Public Library in the early 1900s, located on Margate Street. In 1923, Lankershim was annexed by the City of Los Angeles. Four years later, the city changed it's name to North Hollywood, and consequently the library was renamed the Sidney Lanier Branch, in keeping with the then-tradition of naming all Los Angeles branch libraries after famous poets. In 1929, the library was moved to it's current location on Yujunja Avenue, the new building being designed by the architects Louis Eugene Weston and Louis Eugene Weston Junior.

Following World War II, usage of the library increased greatly, due in large part to the massive growth experienced by Los Angeles during that time. In 1956 architect John James Landon was commission to design an addition to the library to accommodate the influx of patrons. The resulting addition nearly doubled the library's size, and included a new children's area. Care was taken to match the existing design and style utilized by Weston & Weston during the library's initial construction.

In 1980 a suggestion was received by the library to rename the branch after famed pilot Amelia Earhart, who lived in the North Hollywood area and was known for her love of books. This was deemed especially appropriate due to the statue of Earhart just adjacent to the library. Following a poll of the community, the motion to rename the library was passed by the Library Board of Commissions, and in 1981, the motion was enacted. Following this several pieces of memorabilia of the pilot were placed inside the library, including photographs and a scarf that belonged to her.

Northridge Earthquake and Reconstruction

In 1994, the library was one of many structures damaged by the Northridge Earthquake. The library was closed for repairs for a year following the quake, during which time M2A Architects were commissioned to carry out repairs. Most of the repairs were funded by the "Adopt-a-Branch" program, which allows for private or corporate sponsors to supplement the funding of a branch of the Los Angeles Library. In the case of the North Hollywood Branch, MCA/Universal were the primary contributors. The Library officially reopened on April 17th, 1995.

Historic Designations and Awards

The Amelia Earhart Branch was classified as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1986.

In 1987, the North Hollywood Branch and several other branch libraries in Los Angeles were added to the National Register of Historic Places as part of a thematic group submission.

In 2003, the library received the Governor's Historic Branch Preservation Award and the Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award for the renovations carried out by M2A architects.

In 2004, the California Preservation Foundation also awarded M2A with the Preservation Design Award.

See also

• List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles
• List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley
• Los Angeles Public Library