Talk:James B. Hunt Jr. Library/GA1

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

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
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) 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).
 * 1) 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!
 * 1) 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&mdash;and perhaps some FAs&mdash;for inspiration. I hope to see this article back at GAN in the future. Good luck. Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;and perhaps some FAs&mdash;for inspiration. I hope to see this article back at GAN in the future. Good luck. Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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