Talk:James B. Hunt Jr. Library/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Examples of prose/MoS issues below checklist

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I haven't checked all citations for verifiability, but from what I did see the article looks pretty well-referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is quite short, and there is little information on the history and demand for the library. I think a second round of research and information-digging for expansion is needed. Conversely, the Game Lab section goes into unnecessary jargon and detail - people interested in the specs can look them up, but for most readers they are distracting and intimidating.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There seem to be significant issues raised on the talk page. I wholeheartedly agree with DGG's comments about the readiness and development of the article. I haven't yet looked into the close paraphrasing, but this is a copyright issue and needs to be remedied pretty smartly (if not already attended to).

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   While images are not a requirement for GA, I think a photograph of the BookBot would be awesome to see included!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is a great foundation here, but I think it needs a decent push to meet the GA criteria. The only library GA I could find is Harold B. Lee Library, but take a look at other articles in the education section—and perhaps some FAs—for inspiration. I hope to see this article back at GAN in the future. Good luck. Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have done a bit of copy-editing on the article. Feel free to undo anything.
• The lead doesn't adequately summarise the article, and contains information no present in the body. See MOS:LEAD for more.
• "When the project's budget was cut by $11 million in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-08, the BookBot was one of several innovations to emerge, enabling architects to design a smaller building without sacrificing seating." - I know you have a whole subsection dedicated to the BookBot, but I think a few words outlining what the BookBot actually is.
• The first two sections (Architecture and Design and Sustainability) feel quite choppy to read. I think they would work better as one section
• "Compared to storing books on traditional shelves, the delivery system can store the same amount of books while only using 1/9 the size of that." - poor prose, please try to rewrite

Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)