Talk:William D. Weeks Memorial Library/GA1

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

Reviewer: Knope7 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I will continue to look over this article more closely, however, one problem stands out and it will need to be addressed. The "History" section includes only two citations, one at the end of the last two sections. At the very least, each paragraph needs to be cited. The library services and programs section also needs citations. I am commenting on this aspect early in an effort to give the nominator time to remedy the problem.

I'm also concerned with the variety of sources. There are currently 8 citations to sources, 3 of which are for the library itself. I would like to see a greater variety of sources.

The lead should be a summary of information in the article. The number of library cards should be integrated into the article. My overall concern is the article may not yet be comprehensive enough. Knope7 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I still have the following concerns:
 * The lead does not properly summarize the article. There are multiple facts in the lead that are only in the lead and/or infobox. Information about the year the building was complete or the library circulation should be integrated into the body of the article.
 * Citations are missing throughout the article. Several paragraphs do not contain a single citation.
 * The last paragraph of the "history" section is about the library's current operations. It belongs in another section.
 * The article relies very heavily on primary sources. Does the library ever get mentioned in local news? How does the library function in the community?
 * The "Genealogy" section is parroting what is on the website. I'm not quite sure why there is a Genealogy section in the article and not a youth or teens section. Why is Genealogy significant?
 * I like that there are sections on history and architecture. I think that the organization of the article should be readjusted to better convey information about the library's current operations.

I will place the article on hold for now. The sources chosen look good, but more sources are needed. The article is informative. It does need a lot added to it overall. I will give the nominator a chance to address the issues, however, it might be prudent to take some time and renominate in the future. Knope7 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Knope7, Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article. As a relatively new Wikipedian, I was curious about the Good Article nomination process, and I had originally thought that this article had met all the requirements. I see now, though, that it does need a lot of improvement in order to sufficiently be recognized as a "Good Article." I will take your comments and suggestions into consideration and continue working on improving this article over time. Your time and consideration of this article are very greatly appreciated. Thank you for your feedback and for this wonderful learning experience. Pflagg1991 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it sounds like you will need a longer period of time to improve the article, I have failed the article to close out this review. I encourage you to keep working and resubmit the article in the future. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Best of luck moving forward with this article. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)