Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article within the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Part 1

 * Lead
 * The current lead is too brief. Per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
 * "...first published by Melvil Dewey ..." - should mention published in the U.S. 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * History
 * Introduce Melvil Dewey --a sentence or two-- somewhere early in this section LaMona (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Early development (1873–1885)
 * Three of the four paragraphs start with the word "Dewey" - needs tweaking I'm not really a style expert, so I don't know if that suffices 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 1876 he published" - "In 1876, he published" 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "He used the pamphlet, published in more than one version during the year, to solicit comments from other librarians. " - can you expand on the solicitation? LaMona (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dewey applied for and received copyright on the first edition in March 1876." This should be part of the preceding paragraph which is also about the events of 1876. 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph which starts with, "The second edition was published in 1885..." seems more apropos for the Period of adoption (1885–1942) section as it mentions 1885, 1888, 1942. 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dewey modified and expanded his system considerably for the second edition. In an introduction to that edition Dewey states that "nearly 100 persons hav [sic] contributed criticisms and suggestions ..."" and "The second was 314 pages, with 10,000 index entries; 500 copies were produced. - These 3 sentences would fit better with the paragraph which also discusses the second edition. 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The first edition was 44 pages in length, with 2,000 index entries, and was printed in 200 copies. " - this should be grouped with the info on the 1st addition. 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Period of adoption (1885–1942)
 * "One of the innovations of the Dewey Decimal system..." - would this paragraph be a better fit in the earlier section? clarified time period LaMona (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "in 1894 the first abridged edition" - "in 1894, the first abridged edition" 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "in 1930 the Library of Congress " - "in 1930, the Library of Congress " 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "However, the Dewey Decimal Classification was more popular among public libraries" - can you expand on this? LaMona (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "During this time, Dewey Decimal Classification got its first international attention." - a bit clunky. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "This would require some changes to the classification" - "This would have required some changes to the classification" 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Forging an identity (1942 - )
 * I'm not keen on the header's "(1942 - )". Any other options, maybe something like (1942 - present day)? (per precedent) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "With the deaths of Melvil Dewey, May Seymour, and Dorcas Fellows," - The first mention of Seymour and Fellows shouldn't be about their death when further into the article, we learn a bit more about them. LaMona (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "the Dewey system had lost the people who had worked" - "the Dewey system lost the people who had worked" 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "the bibliographic edition had become" - "the bibliographic edition became"  21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "However, by now the" - "However, by now, the" 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "+ .05 form division for periodicals " - is form the right word here?
 * "form division" is what it is called in the classification scheme. Not that that makes it clearer to non-librarians. It could be changed to just say: division for periodical publications. I'll try that.LaMona (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * which "prevents confusion of different books on the same subject." - which "prevents confusion of different books on the same subject". (period placement) 50.1.84.120 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * American Library Association - Place (ALA) after it and clean up later uses, i.e. Administration and publication section 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Design
 * "The most common book number system used in US libraries today is the one invented by Charles Ammi Cutter which was originally invented as part of his Cutter Expansive Classification." - How about moving this to the end of the following paragraph? I removed the entire sentence, because it didn't make sense there. 50.1.84.120 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Influence
 * Maricopa County Library District - Any additional counties? Is this trending? (added ref to a couple of other places) 23:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "in Arizona, USA" - in the U.S. state of Arizona 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Despite its widespread usage, the classification has been criticized " - this paragraph is about criticism rather than influence


 * Administration and publication
 * "...edition 20 by John P. Comaromi." - edition 20 was edited by John P. Comaromi LaMona (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Copyright in editions 1-6 (1876–1919) was held by Dewey himself. Editions 7-10 were held by the publisher, The Library Bureau." - the second sentence doesn't work as a stand-alone LaMona (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "a not-for-profit founded by Melvil Dewey" - a not-for-profit organization founded by Melvil Dewey 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Currently" - see WP:PRECISELANG 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "which is a ten-member international board that meets twice each year." - a ten-member international board which meets twice each year. (nonrestrictive clause) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dublin, Ohio, United States" - Dublin, Ohio, US 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 2003 the " - In 2003, the 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * References
 * They need a bit more attention, as identified on the article's talkpage. For example, Lois Mai Chan (2007) is both Ref3 and Ref13. 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Consider as an example a book on the network protocol IPv6. It will be located at 004.62, after general networking books at 004.6. The shelf location is thus defined." - this should be in a Notes section, not in the Reference section. 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Authors are sometimes specified as lname fname (Refs 34, 35, 36, 37, etc.) vs. fname lname (Refs 3, 7, 12, etc.) - it's standard to use the lname fname convention. (at least the ones I could find) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one ref (#44) is missing the publisher's name 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * page should be denoted as 'p.'; pages as 'pp.' - several refs (i.e. 18, 19, 20, 42, etc.) need to be tidied 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * where Online Computer Library Center is the publisher, refer to it by abbreviation, OCLC, throughout the refs 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Majumder - is there a URL? Comment There is but the website is currently having some issues. Will get back later if those are resolved.  S Pat   talk 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Further reading
 * This header should be changed to Bibliography 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * External links
 * Remove the deadlink 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why include the 2006 Straight Dope URL in the EL section vs. incorporating some of its content into the article? 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why include the Dewey Blog? 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be it. I'll put it on hold for the usual 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thorough review. Hopefully we'll be able to get to most of the points sometime this week. I've done the easy bits, will get to the meatier stuff later.  S Pat   talk 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Rosiestep User:SPat This has been completed. And more, of course. Any other suggestions are very welcome! LaMona (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

 * Lead
 * Generally, the lead doesn't need references, WP:LEADCITE. removed instances of repeated references   S Pat   talk


 * Period of adoption (1885–1942)
 * "... was 314 pages long, with 10,000 index entries." - which was 314 pages long, with 10,000 index entries.   S Pat   talk
 * "... and still in use today." - and is still in use today.   S Pat   talk
 * Not a fan of 1-sentence paragraphs. Suggest combining the last 2 paragraphs of this section; maybe in chron order.   S Pat   talk


 * Forging an identity (1942 - present)
 * "... to date" - avoid these types of terms, see WP:CURRENTLY (will need access to Comaromi  S Pat   talk)


 * References
 * Ref 4 - typo (worldwid)   S Pat   talk
 * Refs 6, 7, 9 - Author names are in fname lname format - change to lname, fname to match the other authors   S Pat   talk
 * Refs 10 and 42 - differentiate between them as they appear to be the same but aren't (added page numbers)   S Pat   talk
 * Refs 11, 15, 16, 28, 38, 39, 40 - missing a comma after the date and/or the comma is in the wrong spot    S Pat   talk
 * Ref 40 - pp. (not p.)   S Pat   talk 00:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article has certainly improved with your recent contributions. These additional comments should do it for me. Please ping me again when you're ready for me to re-read the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed all but one of the points above - hopefully User:LaMona will be able to do the remaining one which requires access to a reference. Thanks for your patience with the review!  S Pat   talk 00:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job; looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: