Talk:Ludington Public Library

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is too short as of now. It should be expanded into one or two paragraphs of three or four lines per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

•  Done

Early history

• "Articles of association were filed April 12, 1872. It was brought up then at an official city meeting on the evening of April 24, 1872 at this same location at the Pere Marquette Lumber Company store." — They would work better if merged, with some tweaks. → "Articles of association were filed on April 12, 1872, and it was brought up at an official city meeting on the evening of April 24, 1872 at the same location."

•  Done

• "The library association then occupied a small building that stood just south of the Pere Marquette Lumber Company's "Big Store" to be used freely by anyone." — Is "Pere Marquette Lumber Company's "Big Store"" the same store mentioned previously in the section? If so, "Big Store" should be mentioned when the store is first mentioned.

•  Done

• "Soon thereafter various plans were considered for a new location." — Is there a reason why they wanted to change the location so soon? If that information is available, it could be included.

•  Done

• "D. L. Filer, who had been the president so far" — "president of the library" or "president of the association"?

•  Done

• "In this proposal all the lumber necessary for its construction would be provided." — Provided by?

•  Done

• "Annual officers of 1872" and "Annual officers of 1874" — This part could should come after the second paragraph, and not the third paragraph because the article starts to talk about later events from the third paragraph.

•  Done

• "The library association subsequently moved to the second floor of the Gebhart Building at the southeast corner of Ludington Avenue and Harrison Street." — Mention the year they moved in.

•  Done

• "On June 11, 1881, there was a major city fire and the building burned to the ground, destroying all the library contents." → "On June 11, 1881, the building and all library contents were destroyed in a major city fire."

•  Done

• "however this was inadequate." — It is little subjective. Perhaps "however their collection had fewer books." would work better.

•  Done

Mid history

• "They first made contact with Andrew Carnegie around 1903 concerning obtaining funds for the construction of a new library." → "They first contacted Andrew Carnegie around 1903 to obtain funds for the construction of a new library."

 Done

• "The city mayor of the time, Warren A. Cartier" → "Mayor Warren A. Cartier".

 Done

• "building was declared as the library that will last a thousand years." — "the library that will last a thousand years" should be written in quotation marks if that is the exact terminology used. If not, I would suggest using the original text in quotations.

 Done

• "The current Ludington Public Library was constructed where the "old Appeal building" once stood." — Mention the year.

 Done

• "His was the lowest general contractor bid of $11,380.33 of the 6 bids received by the city of Ludington." → "His bid of $11,380.33 was the lowest general contractor bid of the six bids received by the city."

 Done

• "The local Ludington newspaper then reported the minutes of the city council showing that the plans for the new library and its construction had been approved." — It isn't very clear what "the minutes" means here and the sentence could be tweaked.

 Done

• "cquote" — Mention the date and newspaper's name in the template, like in William_B._Jordan#Art_acquisitions.

 Done

• "40 million dollars" → "$40 million" — Also, is this per the currency value of the time? If so, conversion to "$ZZZ million in YYYY" should be written in brackets.

 Done

• "On March 1, 1906 the library opened. On its opening in March 1906 the library had assembled a collection of 3,800 books." → "On March 1, 1906 the library opened with a collection of 3,800 books."

 Done

Later history

• "There has been since this time Friends of the Library, a group assisting the activities of the library." → "Since then a group called Friends of the Library has assisted the activities of the library."

 Done

• "The Zonta Room, named for the local branch of Zonta International, includes extensive genealogical and historical research materials." — Needs citation.

 Done

• "Currently the Ludington Public Library has an expansion campaign called Just Imagine" — Use "As of YYYY" instead of "currently" and unbold "Just Imagine", which should only be in italics per MOS:NOBOLD.

 Done

• "the Vision Campaign." — A brief note explaining what it is should be added.

 Done

• "The Ludington library celebrated its centennial in March 2006." — Should add "by organizing ...." if they had an event.

 Done

Flights of learning sculpture

• "John and Anita Wilson" — Mention their profession or their relation to the library.

 Done

• "The sculpture came just after the opening" — Mention the date.

 Done

• "The metal book open at the base of the statue says it all. It explains that parents and members of the community shoulder the responsibility to better the world which can be done in a child's learning." → "The metal book open at the base of the statue is meant to imply that parents and members of the community shoulder the responsibility to better the world through a child's learning."

 Done

Double the Fun sculpture

• "Proctor" — Mention his full name.

•  Done

References

• Dating format in references should be consistent with MMDDYYYY.

 Done

• Reference 3 — Needs "work" and/or "publisher".

 Done

• Will it be possible to add "page(s)" and "title" to all "The Ludington Chronicle" references that don't have them? Reference 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13.

 Done

That should be all. It is a good and detailed read, and it should pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Working Starting to resolve issues. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: All Issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is thoroughly researched and detailed. It reads well and meets the criteria. Thank you for another fine article related to Ludington! — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

CCI review

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315

• From here, cut-and-paste copyvio here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I stopped there, as the first version contains cut-and-paste and there has been too much editing to determine if and what parts of the article should be stubbed/cleaned. Is a "library league" public domain ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:7&6=thirteen, but I still have to wait for the CCI admins to let me know how to handle this one at the CCI, because cut-and-paste content was in the first version.

Did you verify that all offline sources accurately represent the content and do not contain copyvio or too-close paraphrasing? The widest problem seen so far has been in failure to quote, paraphrase, and attribute public domain sources, so all need to be checked. Copy editing was needed, but the quality of the writing is not so much the issue, as Coldwell's articles are all at the GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you? I did not get the books out of the library. Which is what Doug Caldwell would do. That was his unwaivering method of operation.

I rewrote the text so that there is no close paraphrasing.

This article was vetted twice: at DYK and GA.

Copyright violations are easily verified using the tools associated with DYK. The article is now free of that, as I rewrote it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK and GA vetting has not covered Coldwell's recurrrent issues. (Did you see the DYK discussion? DYKs weren't really "vetted" in 2008, and I see no indication that the GA looked at sources at all.) Do you know if the source cut-and-pasted is public domain? Notice I said above I was stopping there, because I found such a large cut-and-paste in the first version. On his other GAs, I am searching for the books at archive,org, and finding most of them. In this case, if the offline sources have not been verified, WP:PDEL applies. Earwig and other tools cannot pick up coppyvio to offline sources, and often can't pick up too-close-paraphrasing, which is part of why they aren't adequate at the Coldwell CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you don't care about the current state of the article. Which you choose to ignore and do not address. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of Coldwell GAs to be reviewed, and thousands of diffs at other articles; in this particular case, I am waiting for the CCI admins to advise me before I continue working. Thank you for improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, not sure if this has been resolved now, but I'm seeing nothing that indicates the "library league" is in public domain. Let me know if you have any other questions Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; just wanted to doublecheck my understanding in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Located one page (incorrectly cited as "page 1882" in a 242-page book), content appears to be cut-and-paste, entire article will need to be checked and re-written to account for proper use of public domain source. See here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

7+6, why did you remove this, which was a sample? It is the previous sentence that is cut-and-paste, you did not change that sentence, and if that is in fact the source referred to as "HR page 1882", there are 18 more, and the section is not "Ludington".

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r [full citation needed] HR Page 1882, section Ludington

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot access this page. I changed the wording. It is in the public domain. So what is your point? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear why I can access it if you can't? I found it via a google search, and I have no special permissions to access that libary (as far as I know)???

My point is that all 18 need checking, as do all other offline sources, and you can't rewrite too-close-paraphrasing or cut-and-paste content unless you have the source. I believe that is the source, but it is cited incorrectly. And in the diff above, you didn't rewrite the one sample sentence.

More info about public domain sources is at Wikipedia:Plagiarism, but that from what seems to be a 1976 book. Feedback needed from CCI folks, more knowledgeable than I on how to proceed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Before 1923. Here If we need to clean up the citation so be it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not questioning the public domain date; is that the source used or is there another? The problem here is that the citation is faulty, which complicates matters. And cleaning up the citation is not the only remedy needed even if it is public domain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

History of Manistee, Mason and Oceana Counties, Michigan (Paperback). H.R. Page & Company. 1882 [1882]. p. 33. ISBN 9780598899057. ISBN 0598899057. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In any event, I have done 47 edits and rewritten the whole article. YMMV. There is a seeming incongruity between the alleged copyright violation/close paraphrasing position and the expressed need for verfication of sources. Apparently WP:AGF is no longer a consideration. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. You will do whatever suits you in any event. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as someone coming here from the CCI, this comment is really unbecoming of you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether offline sources have been checked (for both accurate representation and avoidance of copyright issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it problematic that it's not obvious that text can be both a copyvio due to close paraphrasing while not accurately reflecting what the source said. Consider this text: "Nil Einne is a Wikipedia editor who likes cats. He often talks about them in talk page discussions on the English Wikipedia." If this is from a source with an incompatible licence and is the only source, then writing in an article "Nil Einne is a Wikipedia editor who likes animals. He often talks about them in administrative notice board discussions on several Wikipedias" is introducing something which is both a problem due to close paraphrasing and simultaneously does not accurately reflecting the sole source. Of course an editor could also be guilty of very often close paraphrasing and those times when they don't often getting it wrong. Etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

ISBN query

Could you check the ISBN? It's not working anywhere for me, eg Worldcat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

From this page, it does seem to be the right source, because of the 1882. I have spent now two hours (complicated because of faulty page number, which has endured since the first version 15 years ago) on just tracking down one source (which still needs to be dealt with, along with all the other offline sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I share your frustration about wasted time. Again, the ISBN is in the link I provided. When you create that number of articles, there are going to be typographical errors. I would WP:AGF. But it's your quest, I guess. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The linked ISBN is not working for me from anything at Special:BookSources/9780598899057, including WorldCat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

9780598899057, 0598899057 That's what's at the link I gave you. If you can't make it work, the fault is not in my editing, but in the stars. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

WorldCat does not have that ISBN. I believe your citation above will work if you add the parameter |oclc= 645888026 ... if that's the right one based on searching for all editions and formats at WorldCat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and References copied from W. Stanley Proctor to Ludington Public Library. See history of former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In case this helps, I keep a mockup in sandbox suggested to me by one of the copyvio admins for WP:PATT. So when I need to attribute WP:CWW, I go to my sandbox, edit the mockup to reflect the article I'm working on, view the edit summary in sandbox to make sure I got it right, and then copy that to my edit summary. See User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5#PATT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mcdllogo-sm2.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)