Template:Did you know nominations/Dewey Decimal Classification
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Maile (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dewey Decimal Classification
edit
- ...
that Dewey Decimal Classification (inventor pictured) paved the way for open-shelf access for library patrons?
- ALT1:... that before Dewey Decimal Classification (inventor pictured), books in most U.S. libraries were arranged by height and order of acquisition?
- Reviewed: Exempt (Third party nom)
Improved to Good Article status by SPat (talk). Nominated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
The topic is very notable. The hook is of great interest (it's "obvious" but I admit I never looked at it that way), is referenced in a recently added paragraph with a reliable source published by a notable publisher. I've only skimmed the rest of the article, I rely on the reviewers who agreed to its good article status. However, even if we consider the whole period in which the article was brought to GA status [1], in no way we can consider the text to have grown fivefold. I would IAR this requirement given the very good standing with regard to the others and considering that the hook is a recently introduced information making an otherwise tough/"boring" article more accessible/palatable, but I refrain to do so given my bias towards librarian topics. I'll let someone else decide. --Nemo 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Nemo, I believe you misunderstand the rules about GA nominations: "g) Articles designated as Good articles within the past five days are also eligible." As of Sept 6, 2013, Newly promoted GAs will be eligible for DYK regardless of whether they were recently expanded. This article passed GA on Feb 13, so it qualifies under DYK criteria. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Changing earlier icons really shouldn't be done, and even if they are, the latest icon holds sway, which is Maile's review again. If this is approved, please say so. However, DYK reviews should not rest on the GA review, but be done independently, as some DYK criteria are tougher than GA. It probably makes sense, however, to have a more experienced reviewer check this over, since the original reviewer is shaky on DYK rules in general. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I might have been unclear to Nemo on his talk page and given him the idea he only needed to come back over here and give it a green check. My apologies if I confused Nemo about this. I realize now that I read what Nemo originally wrote "I've only skimmed the rest of the article, I rely on the reviewers who agreed to its good article status. " that indicates the review basics were not yet checked. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Article qualifies as a newly accepted GA. It is almost entirely sourced to offline sources, so we need to AGF on most issues related to sourcing and copyvio (but I didn't detect any copyvio). I have concerns with both hooks. I can't find the original hook in the article -- the article states that open-shelf access followed the development of the Dewey Decimal System, but it doesn't indicate that this was cause and effect. The ALT1 hook is in the article, but it's not supported by a citation. A footnote supporting this fact was removed during the GA review process; I am not sure why it was removed. The book that was cited is still cited at the end of the paragraph, so it is possible that the removal of the ref callout was due to GA reviewers' concern about "too many footnotes". If that's what happened, the footnote should be restored for DYK's purposes, and ALT1 will be good to go. --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Seeing no response to the above comment, and after reviewing the article and its history again, I'm confident that the footnote at the end of the paragraph was intended to support the hook fact. Therefore, I have reinserted an instance of that footnote immediately after the hook fact. ALT1 is good to go -- AGF on offline sourcing. The image is PD, so it's OK to use. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
