Talk:Central Library (Brooklyn Public Library)
Central Library (Brooklyn Public Library) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 25, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Central Library (Brooklyn Public Library) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sonofjen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following 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 Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- ... that in an attempt to save money, the facade of the Brooklyn Central Library was removed? Source: "'Unbuild' Library to Save $2,000,000". Times Union. October 16, 1927. p. 144.
- ALT1: ... that before the Brooklyn Central Library was finished, its site was called the "Pigeon Palace", the "Pigeon Roost", and the "Roman Ruins of Brooklyn"? Source: Various, see article.
- ALT2: ... that the Brooklyn Central Library, authorized in 1889, did not open until 1941? Source: Authorized in 1889: "$750,000 Is Voted to Finish Wing of Central Library". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. June 3, 1926. p. 2. Opened in 1941: "Ingersoll Library Opens; Central Building of Brooklyn Group Put Into Service". The New York Times. February 4, 1941
- ALT3: ... that the Brooklyn Central Library, which took half a century to build, was called "a monument to municipal procrastination"? Source: Authorized in 1889: "$750,000 Is Voted to Finish Wing of Central Library". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. June 3, 1926. p. 2. Opened in 1941: "Ingersoll Library Opens; Central Building of Brooklyn Group Put Into Service". The New York Times. February 4, 1941 "Monument to municipal procrastination" quote: "Library Begun in '12 is Still Unfinished". Daily News. June 5, 1932. p. 70.
- ALT4: ... that the Brooklyn Central Library's shape resembles an open book from above? Source: Brooklyn Public Library, Central Building (PDF) (Report). National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. January 11, 2002. p. 3.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Savoy Vaults
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Central Library (Brooklyn Public Library); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. waiting on QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: Thanks for the review. Sorry about the delay - I totally forgot, and I have added a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Library (Brooklyn Public Library)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 00:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Last updated at 2024-02-12 15:58:40 by Cewbot
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written
- 1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2) Verifiable with no original research
- 2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- 2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
- 2c) it contains no original research
- 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage
- 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:
- 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:
- 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
- 6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall:
Comments:
[edit]Finished through until "Current design", only one issue so far:
- "Local residents wanted the building's development to be accelerated so the BPL's research collection could be relocated there." - source [1] makes no mention of the research collection
- The source says "many priceless volumes are being ruined or damaged and many more are constantly inaccessible". The volumes are from the research collection, but it's only mentioned in other sources. I will remove it. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to keep it you could go for something like: Local residents wanted the building's development to be accelerated so the BPL's currently* inaccessible collection could be relocated there. (* except not "currently" because it was a hundred years ago) ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 00:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've changed it to "Local residents wanted the building's development to be accelerated, as many volumes in the BPL's collection were being damaged or were inaccessible". – Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to keep it you could go for something like: Local residents wanted the building's development to be accelerated so the BPL's currently* inaccessible collection could be relocated there. (* except not "currently" because it was a hundred years ago) ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 00:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- The source says "many priceless volumes are being ruined or damaged and many more are constantly inaccessible". The volumes are from the research collection, but it's only mentioned in other sources. I will remove it. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Current library section:
- "Between April and June 1936, about 200,000 people signed a petition asking PWA secretary Harold L. Ickes to approve money for the building, By then, Ingersoll described the Central Library as the highest-priority "needed improvement" in Brooklyn." - You want one sentence here, or two?
- That was intended to be two sentences. I've fixed it now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- "and an adult-service room" - that sounds like something very different than what is intended!
- Yeah... punctuation could completely change the meaning of a sentence. I meant a service room for adults. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- "The Central Library's biography–history–travel and language–literature departments were moved to another part of the building in February 1971, after part of the second floor had been renovated, and the art–music and audiovisual divisions were moved that October." - I know the source used hypens, but those should probably be commas
- In my opinion, this would make it sound like the biography/history/travel department (for example) is actually three different departments, rather than a single department. Same with language/literature and art/music. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Ah, I thought they were separate departments, perhaps art/music, etc, is better? Everything else looks great. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 16:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, I have done that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Architecture section:
- Wikilink "Virginia alvarene stone" and "fluted pilasters"?
- I linked fluted pilasters but couldn't find a link for alvarene. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- "it could fit about one million[296] or two million books in its stacks.[137] ... The stacks could hold about a million books.[123][181]" - what's going on here, did everyone just give different estimates?
- Yep. I've combined the mentions of one million books, but that seems to be the number that more contemporary sources give. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
"Brooklyn Community Foundation Lobby at the rear of the basement.[298]" - dead link, will try to fix it myselfDone
Rest:
- "Although Christopher Gray of The New York Times wrote in 2004 that the building was an "impressive, Moderne-style, wedge-shaped structure" but that its "impressive site is in fact one of its biggest disadvantages" because of the high amounts of traffic on Grand Army Plaza." - that's not quite a sentence
- Oops, I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Looks pretty good! Just a couple minor things, ping me once you fix those and I'll happily pass it ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 04:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Argenti Aertheri: Thanks for the review. I have fixed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Art and architecture good articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- GA-Class Architecture articles
- Low-importance Architecture articles
- GA-Class Libraries articles
- Low-importance Libraries articles
- WikiProject Libraries articles
- GA-Class Historic sites articles
- Low-importance Historic sites articles
- WikiProject Historic sites articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles