Talk:Easton Area Public Library

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Easton Area Public Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 06:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this over the next few days. SounderBruce 06:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

General

• Please add converted inflation figures to dollar amounts before 2000, using {{inflation}}. I recommend using US-GDP, which is suited to government expenditures.

This is the only piece of advice I feel looks out of sorts. If it's 100% needed I'll add it, and it might just be my opinion, but adding these often interrupts the cadence and flow of the paragraph and is often (in my mind) information that no one really needs to know. It's also not represented in many of the other GA-library articles, I just don't see it's purpose here. Interested to hear your thoughts. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

While not an official policy, many recently promoted articles now incorporate inflation information because of its helpfulness in putting costs in context. It's easier to visualize with modern equivalencies and doesn't leave too large of a break in flow (see Kayak Point County Park for how I formatted it). SounderBruce 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• References should use a consistent date scheme (month day, year or day month year), but appears to be mixed right now. Y
• Newspapers.com references should have {{free access}} appended to them. Y
• Add commas after dates, e.g. "January 16, 1811, when 100 shares of stock", "In 2001, the Easton Library", etc. Y
• Details about the library's current services and the Marx Room should be split into a new section, along with information about the library's behind-the-scenes operations (budgets, administration, statistics about circulation and collection size).

Sorted the sections, added some good information to let the Marx Room section standalone. Again, looking at the other ~20 GA articles for specific libraries I don't see a whole lot of them delving too deep into the specific stats other than a cursory overview in the infobox. For some, like a research library, it's good information to note. The Easton Library is more important for its history rather than its collection (which is paltry compared to some others, and not very well documented online to even match what other pages offer in their respective sections on this!). For the most part adding Easton's collection info would be mundane which is why I tried to organically sprinkle it in throughout the history sections. Looking to hear your thoughts on this as well. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I made some small formatting changes using a script. Feel free to revert them if they're unnecessary in your eyes. Y

They look great, thanks!

• References 1, 2, 3, 8, 21, and 23 are missing information about the publisher and date of publication. Y

I think I got them all! I added some references which pushed these numbers around.. but besides webpage dates everything should have the publisher. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Either all statements in the lead need in-line citations or none of them do. Please move the remaining in-line citations into the history section or add them for other sentences. Y

Added to lead, I like things nicely sourced from the get-go, doesn't make people wander down to find that information a second time in the body.

History

• Which army? Please add a link. Y
• The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a comma after "library" Y
  • Same goes for the first sentence of the second paragraph (between "1895" and "with"). Y
  • Same goes for the next sentence, between "city" and "regardless". Y
• The opening times need to be formatted consistently, per MOS:TIME. Y
• What is a "local success"? Y
• "A two-story 90 x 70 square foot building of Modern Renaissance architecture style" is a mouthful and needs to be broken up with commas. I suggest the following: Y
  • "a two-story Modern Renaissance building, measuring 90 by 70 feet (27 by 21 m),"

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that either, I like your suggestion a lot. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comma before "plans" and "Carnegie" Y
• What is a District Library Center? Explain its importance. Y
• "Northampton county" needs to be capitalized and linked. Y
• Isn't "Marx room" supposed to be capitalized? Y

I suppose it's a proper noun now, so yes :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Could more information about the Palmer branch be added?

There's really not much there that is encyclopedic, let me get back to this. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's gaps in coverage, including the entire 1990s and anything past 2001. Did nothing of note happen to the library in the time since then?

Nothing of major importance, similar to how large amounts of time in the 1900s were omitted as well. Of course there is routine coverage of the library since the advent of news media online, but 99.9% of "news" surrounding the library are about book fairs, children's authors coming to town, and other passing comments that happen to mention an event occurring at the library. I'll take another long look into it though, but for now my answer is nothing of importance has happened recently that I have left out. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That should do it for now. The article is on hold until these issues are resolved. SounderBruce 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going through and fixing all of those issues. I'll pass on the operations information and gaps in coverage, but there are some small issues left to address:

• The inflation figures, as explained above.
• The subsection headings in the history section should use endashes, rather than hyphens.
• "Counties" should not be capitalized.
• Is Eaton Patch a reliable source? As a self-published site, I would rather see an alternative if possible.
• Adding links to newspapers and publishers on their first appearance in the references would be nice, but not totally necessary. Newspapers.com should only be linked once, however.

After this, I think I'll be ready to pass this article. SounderBruce 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Alright, made all those changes. I just didn't put the inflation in the lead, I still really dislike it in general, but it's in the body! Also I do believe Newspapers.com is required to be linked every time as part of our program we have with Wikipedia through them, the rules are listed here: Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. They provide researchers with free access to their database, and in turn those are the rules we comply by (at least my interpretation). That should be everything!! (Side note, on that Kayak Point County Park article, one of the inflation templates has million billion in it, I wasn't sure if that was correct or not but it looked wrong to me - just a head's up.) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that typo. The link to the Newspapers.com article (not the actual website and clips) is not necessary after the first occurrence, per MOS:DUPLINK. I went ahead and fixed the inflation figures, which weren't quite formatted in a consistent manner (the template does take a while to use effortlessly). I just need you to remove the Patch references, and break up any chain of three citations in a row, before I can pass this. SounderBruce 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the wikilink to it, yes that makes more sense. Thanks for the inflation changes, that's a lot smoother. All should be set now. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I can finally pass this article. Well done! SounderBruce 07:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)