Talk:Widener Library/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As requested:

Lead

• Per WP:LEADLENGTH, for an 18K prose article, the lead should be about 2 paragraphs, so the current lead will need to be slimmed down a bit. Not sure what should go yet until I've digested the rest of the article, though

I usually overstuff the lead then squeeeeeeze it back down later, so let's do that together after we've finished with the rest of the article -- when we'll have the best perspective. EEng (talk)

• "The Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library" - since "Widener Library" is the common name, best to put "commonly known as the Widener Library" here.

There's a discussion right now about whether the article should be renamed Widener Memorial Library so let's wait for how that turns out. EEng (talk)

• "vast and cavernous" - appreciate this is sourced correctly but the citation mid sentence jumps out, might it be simpler to say "extensive" instead (without quotation and source)
• "Harvard College Libraries" - should be wikilinked to Harvard College Library

 Not done Unfortunately that turns out to redirect to "the" Harvard Library (which is what, until recently, was called the Harvard University Library -- they hired some stupid brand management firm or something to make the dumb name change). The Harvard Library (aka Harvard University Library) is a different (though related) thing from the Harvard College Library (long story) but for the moment they're covered by the same article, and thus the redirect. You'll see I've used Faculty of Arts and Sciences to try to hint at the relationship between the two as best possible given these limitations, but I don't think we should give two links, right next to each other, that take the reader the same place. EEng (talk)

Ah, good point well made. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Widener Library's holdings" - might be simpler to say "The library's holdings"

 Done EEng (talk)

• "a gift of the Widener family in 1944 and the object, in 1969, of a theft" - this reads a bit awkwardly. Since we need to trim the lead down, I'd probably cut "and the object" to the rest of the end of the paragraph, unless the 1969 theft is one of the most important facts about the library (I think it probably isn't)
• "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle." - quotations in the lead generally want a source (this is just a technical thing, I see there is one in the body)

 Done EEng (talk)

• "In the 1990s an epidemic of books" - what does "an epidemic of books" mean?

 Done Changed to In the 1990s an epidemic of mutilated books...

• "Campus legends .... are without foundation." - I'd probably leave this out of the lead, or merge it with another paragraph. If so, it would probably be better written something like "The campus has several unproven legends, including...."

Here I must disagree (about dropping it -- we certainly might merge it, as you say). First, the legends aren't just unproven, they're categorically false, and second, beyond the fact that poor Harry Widener "went down with the Old Canoe", the idea that Mrs. Widener insisted that all future Harvard men learn to swim is undoubtedly the story most often repeated story about the place (well, the most often-repeated false story, anyway -- see [1]). Just a guess, but I'd bet that curiosity about this is the most frequent single reason people visit the article. EEng (talk)

Comments on the body later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's come back to the lead, and the remaining points above, after we've gone through the rest of the article. OK?

EEng (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

• "In 1912 Harry Elkins Widener—​scion of two of the wealthiest fami­lies in America" - might be easier to say "descendent" instead of "scion". Additionally, what has the "Mrs. A. H. Rice Dies in a Paris Store" in the citation got to do with this fact?

I really think scion is better -- his mother and his father, separately, were prime heirs of two of the greatest American fortunes of the time, and HEW was the oldest son produced by this union. Descendent carries the connotation that the uniting of these fortunes was a few generations back.

Read on to find out how Mrs. Widener later became Mrs. Rice -- more at Eleanor Elkins Widener, and don't miss the part about going up the Amazon in the custom yacht, and the cannibals. EEng (talk)

• "avid and knowl­edge­able bibliophile"‍ - this is tagged {{better source}} and a general rule of thumb is that GAs are tag-free
• "His father George Dunton Widener was lost as well, but his mother Eleanor Elkins Widener survived." - needs a citation. Part of the GA criteria is that inline citations must be used for all facts that could be challenged or are contentious, and deaths and fates of people tend to count as such. Also, I'd suggest "also died" or "also perished" instead of "was lost as well" as the latter case sounds a bit too much like a euphemism.

 Done Added cite, and changed to perished, which you're right is more appropriate. EEng (talk)

• "Gore Hall (Harvard's grossly over­bur­dened exist­ing library)" - "grossly overburdened" is too strong and should be toned down. Possibly in this case it would be simpler to leave it out, just saying "Harvard's existing library" and let the footnote deal with the problems
• "A number of stipulations accompanied this gift" - might be easier to write as "The will indicated some stipulations"

 Done Well, the stipulations weren't in the will -- they were Mrs. Widener's. I changed it to To this gift Mrs. Widener attached a number of stipulations. EEng (talk)

• "including that the building's archi­tects be the firm of Horace Trumbauer & Associ­ates" - tumblr is generally not considered a reliable source for a GA, as broadly speaking anyone can write anything the like on it. I'm sure a better source can be found without too much difficulty.

I understand about tumblr in general of course, but look closer: this is an official blog of the library, maintained by its librarians -- see [2]. EEng (talk)

• "which had built several mansions" - suggest "who had built several mansions"

 Not done As the sentence is structured it's the firm (Trumbauer & Associates) not the man (Trumbauer) that built them. EEng (talk)

So it is. Which is strange because to me it looked wrong, but according to grammar rules it's right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "which had built several mansions for both the Elkins and the Widener families" - another {{better source}}
• "Harvard presi­dent Abbott Law­rence Lowell confided privately" - I think this clause would sit better as "Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell privately said" and at the start of the sentence

 Done Made it wrote privately (since he was writing, not speaking). EEng (talk)

• "Much later" - just "later" will do here

 Done Made it Harvard historian William Bentinck-Smith has written that...

• "To [Harvard officials] Mrs. Widener...." - this quotation is a little overlong, and may invite complaints of close paraphrasing. I'd probably go for the section starting "no one at Harvard ever knew the exact cost" to the end and format it as an inline quotation with the rest of the prose.
• The picture of Eleanor Elkins Widener needs it caption expanding to explain who she is. For a GA, a reader should be able to tell what a picture's relevance is without looking at the article
• This section has too many images, which dominate the text. I appreciate all are out of copyright and could be used, but WP:PERTINENCE (part of the GA criteria) says "editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful". I would prioritise the images in relevance to the library - so the floor plan and the plaque are useful; the pictures of people less so. The recommended route for lots of images is to put them in Commons; then people can browse through far more images than could be sustained in an article.

Above are just the quick points I was able to address tonight. Keep going!

EEng (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Like any parent, I'm hurt, angry, and resentful at all this unfair criticism of my perfect child. Keep it up -- this is very healthy! EEng (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm only partway through, but if I've got this far the odds are pretty likely it will go to "on hold" rather than "fail" so don't panic! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Building

• "At Harvard's "geographical and intellec­tual heart"" - the source given doesn't have that quotation

 Done Link was dead, now fixed. EEng (talk)

• "the Harry Elkins Wide­ner Memor­ial Li­brary" - since the library name has been explained, I'd reduce this to "The library" and put it at the start of the sentence

 Done I changed it to "the Library", but honestly I don't see how to reorder the elements of the sentence as you suggest. Make a bold edit if you have something in mind. EEng (talk)

• "250 ft by 200 ft by 80 ft" - for the benefit of Canadians and other foreign countries, it would be helpful to convert these distances into metres, per the square foot figure further on in the sentence. Also, as above, the link to the source doesn't appear to have these figures in it

 Done and added missing cite for dimensions. EEng (talk)

• "In the building's center ... are the Widener Memorial Rooms (see below)." I'd recommend putting this part of the sentence up front, and then putting the rest in a separate sentence.

I don't see a way of doing this. Feel free to show what you have in mind, if you like. EEng (talk)

• I don't believe the "(see below)" link is generally accepted. This is because Wikipedia content can be printed and republished elsewhere (and I've seen it happen), at which point the context is lost. WP:EASTER is probably the closest guideline to this.

 Done Well, it's a little awkward but I've make the link textually explicit.

EEng (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dedication

• As before, the quotation would sit better as paraphrased prose. Generally, I find quotations are best used for opinions that would violate WP:NPOV if presented as facts, or for "smoking gun" evidence of a claim without taking sides on it.
• The newspaper source's title should simply be "Windener is Dedicated" - I wouldn't worry about the subtitles. As long as you've got the newspaper name, the date, and the page number, that's enough detail to verify the claims
• "believed at the time (though no longer believed)" - I wouldn't worry about the text in brackets, the context to me makes it obvious that it was believed to be true but is no longer, otherwise that would simply say "believed"

 Done Well, we can't just say "believed to be", because that implies it's still believed. believed at the time moderately distances itself from continued belief, and would be OK. believed (at the time) to be emphasizes better that the belief is no longer. EEng (talk)

• Good call on the redlink to The Christian Warfare - it looks like a notable book that ought to have an article.

Perhaps we can do a DYK together some day. EEng (talk)

• Is the picture of Widener here the one in the Memorial Rooms? If so, it should say so

Which picture? EEng (talk)

• This section also has too many images. On a 1920x1200 laptop, there's a huge gap of text which makes it difficult to read the prose without having to scroll down accurately

If you're still seeing this problem, can you describe it more precisely, plus say what browser etc. you're using?

EEng (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Widener Memorial Rooms

• "The central Memorial Rooms—​an outer Rotunda housing memorabilia" - I can't find the word "Rotunda" in the source given. As above, the quotation would sit better as paraphrased prose.

 Done Added source for rotunda. We're going to have to have a larger discussion re quotes. EEng (talk)

• "(For many years..." - I wouldn't worry about putting this in brackets. Again, would be beneficial to paraphrase the quotation rather than explicitly using it

Again, we'll have to come back to the quotes question. Leaving those in place for now, the parentheses (or, as you foreigners call them, the brackets) are appropriate since we are temporarily interrupting the newspaper's narrative. EEng (talk)

• "Above the Rotunda entrance is inscribed" - put this quotation in the standard font, and inline with the rest of the prose

 Done To my surprise this looks good as modified. But I've retain the bullets indicating linebreaks in the original, and imputed capitalization, because without these the inscription comes across as an illiterate run-on. If you can improve on this I'd certainly welcome it. EEng (talk)

• "Eleanor Widener had made the acquaintance" - this sounds like a euphemism, maybe "had started a relationship with" would be better

 Done To say that the Widow Widener "started a relationship" right there at the ceremony would sound a bit unseemly, don't you think? There is, however, a little locked room off the Rotunda which the staff of the library are visibly uncomfortable talking about... The source says "met" so I've changed "made the acquaintance of" to simply "met". EEng (talk)

• "who died on the Titanic as well" - suggest "who also died on the Titanic"

 Done

EEng (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Amenities and deficiencies

• I think the first quotation can be more or less paraphrased "as is" without the need for quote marks

 Done, though I've kept the quotes on two terms readers may find unusual. EEng (talk)

• "Nonetheless certain deficien­cies were noted almost immediately" - "almost immediately" is a little strong, how about "were soon noted"

 Done EEng (talk)

• "wrote cryptically in 1918" - don't think the "cryptically" is necessary here (cryptically in whose opinion?)

Well, cryptic to everyone -- do you know what exactly is meant by, "The need of better toilet facilities has been pressed upon us ... by several rather distressing experiences"? He leaves the reader to puzzle about what exactly is meant, which is the essence of crypticality ... crypticallitousness ... whatever. (An earlier version said he'd written ominously.) You have to admit it's rather amusing. I'd rather leave it unless you feel strongly. Or we could say opaquely. Let's try that, actually. EEng (talk)

• "And librari­an Archibald Cary Coolidge wrote to J. P. Morgan, Jr.," - presumably what follows a quotation, in which case it must be attributed to an inline citation

The source is cited in the note just after the parenthetical that follows.

• "has been a long­standing headache for library administrators" - suggest "a longstanding problem"

 Not done Headache is definitely the right word. There have been angry denunciations at faculty meetings, public accusations of favoritism, decades-long feuds, etc. As the great Clark Kerr said, "The three purposes of the University? - To provide sex for the students, sports for the alumni, and parking for the faculty." EEng (talk)

Understand all of that, but I don't believe they caused actual physical pain the administrators heads (unless it was, of course, from banging them against brick walls). So per WP:EUPHEMISM (which is part of the GA criteria), a different, non-metaphorical word should be used. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Euphemism is something like passed on for died; headache isn't a euphemism but rather standard imagery. What I should do is consult the source (which spends several pages on this, as I recall) but in the meantime how about distraction? EEng (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, distraction sounds okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking another break - we'll get there. I'm more convinced now though, that something about book theft should go in the lead. More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this something not in the lead already?

EEng (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is, but I speculated it could be removed. I'm now un-speculating that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Collections and stacks

• You shouldn't link external images in articles. If the image can't be copied to WP or Commons, it's probably for a good reason.

 Done Agree it doesn't add much. A helpful editor has already removed it. EEng (talk)

• among the world's five "mega­libraries" - the information about the others would sit better in a footnote

 Not done Without listing the other libraries readers won't know what megalibrary means. EEng (talk)

• As above, keep the quotations down and paraphrase

Let's you and I meet with pistols at dawn to resolve this quotation question once and for all. EEng (talk)

• "It's 3.5 million volumes" - same problem with this source as before

 Done The link has been fixed. EEng (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• "along four miles (6 km) of aisles" - there are many facts and figures in the source given, but none are for four miles

Hmmm... I've changed this to until I can figure our where I got this. EEng (talk)

• "Though until a recent renovation" - I don't think "though" is necessary

 Done Though or but needs to be in there somewhere to connect the two opposing statements, but I've reworded. See if you like it. EEng (talk)

• "at times color-coded lines and shoeprints have been applied to the floors to guide the bewildered" - this sits better as a separate sentence, and I don't think "bewildered" is an appropriate word to use, maybe "newcomers" or "first-time visitors"?

 Done It's definitely not just newcomers -- I've added a source on that. I've changed to guide the bewildered to the slightly less flippant to assist patrons who have lost their bearings -- since one of the sources is entitled "Dazed and Confused in Widener" I think that's justified, don't you? EEng (talk)

• "As of 1997 the number of volumes reshelved each year was about 600,000" - suggest "As of 1997, the library reshelved around 600,000 volumes a year"

 Done

EEng (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Harry Elkins Widener Collection

• "a copy of Poems written by Wil. Shake-speare, gent. (1640) in its original sheepskin binding" - does this source have a page number or other identifier so it can be easily verified?

 Done Added url to cite. EEng (talk)

• "Johnson's own Bible" - the source also says "it was used so much by its owner that several pages were worn out and Johnson copied them over in his own writing." which might be worth adding as a footnote

 Done EEng (talk)

• Charles Dickens and Robert Cruikshank should be wikilinked in full

 Done Changed text for Cruikshank links. Not sure what you mean about Dickens. EEng (talk)

• "the petty cash book kept by Dickens as a young law clerk" - I think this needs to go next to the mention of Dickens earlier in the prose, possibly within brackets and adding "including"

 Done EEng (talk)

• "a bona fide research need" - suggest "a genuine research need" (IIRC, the British Library which has the same policy describes availability as "a genuine need to use its collections".)

 Done

EEng (talk)

In literature and legend

• For the first quotation, I would trim it back to "There is absolutely no evidence..." onwards

Try it yourself and I think you'll see why that won't work (unless I'm missing something). EEng (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More later Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Burglary and theivery incidents

Björk, clearly covering Genesis's "Supper's Ready", denies accusations of speaking "unusual" languages. Like English.

• Off-topic - the Gutenberg Bible theft sounds like a great DYK in the making

Unfortunately this article's already had its DYK star turn. Are you suggesting this could be its own article? I guess maybe -- we've got Baby Jesus theft. EEng (talk)

• This source regarding the Gutenberg Bible theft also includes "Jonas built herself a glass-walled office in the Museum of Comparative Zoology library so that she can see what's going on; she repeatedly drills her staff on correct behavior; and no one can go into the rare-book area alone." It might be nice to add some more of that source into this section of the article

Amazing, isn't it, how much source material there is here. Let's circle back to this when we're past GA. EEng (talk)

• "unusual languages such as Icelandic" - well you might the Icelandic is an unusual language, but I suspect Björk won't agree with you! I'd leave out "unusual"

Well, if we just say "languages such as Icelandic" the reader is left to wonder what "such as" means -- languages spoken in cold countries? The source says "uncommon languages such as Icelandic", and the fact is Icelandic only has about 300,000 speakers total, so I'm not sure Bjork wouldn't agree with unusual. Can you suggest a substitute? EEng (talk)

How about "little-studied" (with the implication there that Icelandic is not a popular language to study at Harvard, which I think is the point trying to be made here). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think what's really meant is something like "exotic" or "obscure" (remember, what the guy seemed preoccupied with was cabalistic stuff like chemistry and early church writings) but on reconsideration let's just say "languages such as Icelandic" and let the reader make of it what he will. EEng (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• "bombings of libraries and a local bank were promised" - maybe "threatened" would be a better word. One source claims the blackmailer intended to use cyanide poisoning, which could be added to the article.

 Done, and cyanide is always a yummy addition to any article. EEng (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since we now know via reliable sources that "The Slasher"'s real name was Stephen Womack, that should be mentioned in the article, and it does not violate WP:BLPCRIME to do so

I thought about this at length when I first wrote the section. I don't see how including his name adds to the reader's understanding of the subject, and since this sad person is still alive I don't see what's gained by drawing further attention to him. What do you think?

EEng (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Renovation

• "—​the first since the building opened[136]—​" - I think brackets would work better than dashes

 Done Here on earth we call them parentheses :P. EEng (talk)

• Worth adding the renovation took five years

 Done EEng (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the main prose done. Just the footnotes and some other citations to checked, and the review will be complete. Two main themes I see throughout are the overuse of quotations and images, which will need to be managed in some way. More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes

• A and F - quotations should be in normal font
• B - extra brackets around the wikilink for bibliophiles
• I think footnote D has far too much information and belongs in a separate Gore Hall article
• I - "the lamp on the desk an (unsigned) Tiffany" - worth explaining what "Tiffany" is in this context
• Footnotes K and R each have a tag
• L - the large quotation would be better paraphrased

Summary

• I've checked the whole article now. Basically, when every action point is addressed (either by being fixed or convincing me it doesn't need doing), then the article should meet the GA criteria and the review can pass. Until then, I'll mark it as "on hold" to give you a chance to address everything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've had a go at putting images into a format that works okay on my browser into the "Background" section. Unfortunately it means most have had to be commented out, but if you are okay with what I've done there, I can go through the rest. The source markup is, well, interesting, but don't fret, none of that is part of the GA criteria! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)