Talk:Halifax Central Library/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elekhh (talk · contribs) 09:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Prose can be more concise, less reliant on quotes; minor spelling inconsistencies ; has some out of date or inconsistent information ;
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead needs improvement;
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Description of collection (medias and size) lacking/unclear; Unfortunately no public information a available.
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * Emphasis on recent history/development process excessive.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Minor issues: criticism of design competition jury included without clarification of what the composition of the jury was.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Assuming that the "Book Shelf Paintings by Cliff Eyland" qualifies under FOP as 3d craftsmanship designed for the interior of the building.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Assuming that the "Book Shelf Paintings by Cliff Eyland" qualifies under FOP as 3d craftsmanship designed for the interior of the building.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Starting review. Will update the above criteria as we progress. -- ELEKHHT 09:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is very good work so far. The article is comprehensive, structured, properly referenced, clearly written and well illustrated. Issues are mainly related to the fact that this is a very recent building. For instance the recent history is lengthy and includes some trivial information, while the description of the library lacks some detail and precision. More specifically:
 * The article has some recentism issues, some out of date info, and some inconsistencies between what has been reported before and after completion:
 * I think the lead should only have one paragraph about the history/development process, while the third paragraph should provide a description of the building and the library collection.
 * The history section has a lot of detail about council process, some of which can be condensed. What is ultimately relevant from a historical perspective?
 * "It had then remained as a parking lot until present" - is no longer valid.
 * "The facility will accommodate a book collection 50 per cent larger than that of the present Spring Garden Memorial Library" - but the paragraph above states that the SGML has been already closed (so cannot be 'present'). Also the article should be clear about the size of the collection (to be also included in the infobox).
 * "The total estimated cost of the project stands at $57.6 million" - why not final costs if the project is now completed?
 * "The award will be presented later this year" - which year?
 * "The company that designed the system will repair it under warranty." - seems trivial recentism.
 * "Brian MacKay-Lyons, who complained that the jury, made up of bureaucrats" - if this is notable, then the reader will want to know who was in the jury (not by name, but how many bureaucrats/stakeholders and how many professionals).
 * "The building was featured on numerous architecture websites including Dezeen and ArchDaily.[44][45] [...] and appeared on The Amazing Race Canada in July 2015." - seem rather trivial, providing little information.
 * Use consistent spelling for "cafe"/"café" and "Living Room".
 * "The Halifax Central Library has the largest floor area and largest book collection of all Halifax public libraries." this would fit well together with the sentence that states that is "11,000 square metres".
 * Not sure if "Design" and "Features" are the best section headings for describing the library. Do you think "Building" and "Programme" would be better?
 * Some of the external links don't work any more (mostly subpages of halifaxcentrallibrary.ca) - need to be updated if possible.
 * Overall, while the article needs some more work, it can relatively easily become a GA if the above issues are addressed. -- ELEKHHT 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ELEKHH, many thanks for the comprehensive and helpful review! I am about to go on holiday but I will work on incorporating your comments when I return. Citobun (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Citobun, I see you're back from the holiday and made some changes, but only some of the issues have been resolved (check-list updated above). -- ELEKHHT 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ELEKHH, I have incorporated most of your comments with a couple points outstanding:


 * Fixed most dead links, although two remain as I couldn't find a replacement for either.
 * I emailed the library for a proper source on the collection size figure. I have not yet received a reply so I've just sent a followup email. Will update ASAP.
 * Thanks again for conducting the review – Citobun (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Citobun, this looks very good now. Dead links are not an issue they can be accepted per AGF. Btw, have you looked if those pages have been archived? If there is no public information about the collection size than we have to live with that, but if there are figures in the article then they need to be referenced. Thus two minor issues are remaining:
 * The infobox figure of collection size is unreferenced.
 * The statement that "is the largest of all Halifax public libraries in terms of floor area and collection size" is not backed by the provided reference.
 * Both can be solved by either removing the statements or providing a reliable reference. -- ELEKHHT 09:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ELEKHH. I still can't find a published figure for the collection and the library rep never got back to me, so I've deleted references to the collection size in the meantime. Found an archive link for one broken link but not for the other. Kind regards, Citobun (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Citobun, it's GA now. -- ELEKHHT 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)