Talk:New York Public Library Main Branch/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Sorry about the delay; I have started the review now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vami IV: It's all right. I replied to your comments below. epicgenius (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Has there been any progress on this review? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't, but I haven't abandoned this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Article size

This article is truly massive at a file size of 132,848 bytes at time of writing. This is well in excess of WP:TOOBIG. However, the article's prose text is just 49 kB (or 8347). As this is a Good Article Nomination, and not a Featured Article one, I will for the moment note this. If the nominee so desires, I will offer advice for reducing the article size. This will entail condensation of sections of prose, reduction of reference text, and maybe outright removal of some content. Buyer beware. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• Footnote B is made wholly redundant by the text it is attached to.

• The sentence The Main Branch was originally called the Central Building[7] and was later known as the Humanities and Social Science Center.[8] would be a better fit for this footnote.

•  Done

• Additional space for the library's stacks constructed under adjacent Bryant Park was added in 1991, [...] This sentence has a redundancy and could be made shorter. See: Additional space for the library's stacks was constructed under adjacent Bryant Park in 1991, [...]
  •  Done
• The building was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1965, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places the following year. It was made a New York City designated landmark in 1967, though parts of the interior were separately listed as New York City designated landmarks in 1974 and 2017. I feel this paragraph would be better placed in the first paragraph, as both deal with its status as a landmark for the United States and New York City.
  •  Done, added to the end of the first paragraph. However, this is more of an official designation than a cultural designation. epicgenius (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

History

The beginning of this section (at "Construction") feels to me like it begins a few chapters into the book, so to speak. Could you add some text about the history of the library up to this point, possibly in the empty "History" section?

 Fixed I moved up the first paragraph since that deals more with context, rather than construction. epicgenius (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you add some more text about the beginnings of the New York Public Library System? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's basically it. A larger history is in the NYPL's main article, but basically the Astor and Lenox libraries combined to form the NYPL. I'm only including what were the events leading to the Main Branch's formation. epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Construction

• 350,000 items [...] but still a large number. The first part of the text highlighted here makes the second redundant; it's hard to even picture 350,000 items in one's head. My eyes already tell me that that's a big item, even proportionally for a library.
  •  Done
• The Astor and Lenox Libraries were planned to close once the Main Branch was opened.[39] Could this be moved to the first paragraph? It would be more relevant there.
  •  Fixed

20th-century growth

• During World War II, American soldiers decoded a Japanese cipher based on a Mexican phone book whose alleged only copy existed at the Main Branch.[52] This would be more relevant in "1940s and 1950s".
  •  Not done The reason that sentence is in this particular location, is that it's adding on to the sentence about the branch's importance as a research facility. Since this is at the "lead" area for that particular subsection, it fits as an overview for the sub-subsections. The 1940s and 1950s section fits chronologically, but talks about facility improvements. It would not fit as well in that section as a result. epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Would it be possible to discuss this in the 1940s section, though? This sounds fascinating. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Vami IV: Let me think about it. This may still read weirdly, though. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• every day except Sundays, and 1 to 10 p.m. on Sundays Condense this.
  •  Done
• By 1926, the library was heavily patronized, with up to 1,000 people per hour requesting books at certain times of day. The peak hours of patronage were 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 3:30 to 5:50 p.m., and the peak "season" was October through May. Condense this too.
  •  Partly done it can't be condensed that much, though.
    • I am satisfied with its current state. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• in the late 1910s Remove.
  •  Done
• There were 1.3 million books requested through call slips in 1927, requested by nearly 600,000 people. This could be shortened with no loss in quality; it is longer than it needs to be and uses "requested" twice. Compare with: There were 1.3 million books requested by nearly 600,000 people through call slips in 1927.
  •  Done
• By 1934, though annual patronage held steady at 4 million [...] Four million books or dollars?

• Note that {{nbsp}} is to be applied between the integer and the number (ie "million") to keep them together.
  • Four million people. I thought it would be obvious given that it just mentioned "patronage". Apparently not... epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• However, this still proved to be insufficient. [...] however, it was never built. Delete one of these two "however"s.

• However, after Henry died, [...] This "however" is entirely unnecessary; remove.

•  Done both

• some lighting fixtures went dark and were never replaced, and the room's windows became dirty because they were never cleaned. Unnecessary details.
  •  Partly done I kept these particular examples to show concrete details of the neglect in the reading room, but it has been trimmed nonetheless. epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Contracts were awarded for the installation of a new floor level above the south corridor on the first floor, as well as for replacement of the skylights, in 1964. Move "in 1964" to after "awarded".
  •  Done
• By 1965, the branch contained 7 million volumes.[79] The branch had outgrown its 88-mile (142 km) stacks by the mid-1960s. Another condensation needed. Also, change "mile" to "miles". I am otherwise led to believe that each stack is 88 miles long or that it has one 88-mile long stack. That'd be a pretty cool library, actually, if inefficient.
  •  Done
• The lions in front of the Main Branch's main entrance were restored in 1975. This seems an odd thing to do while on the rocks; what enabled this?
  •  Comment: I don't know. It must have been a private donation. I can't find a reliable source for this, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Bryant Park, which was restored starting in 1989, was reopened in mid-1992. This should be reduced to just Bryant Park was reopened in mid-1992.
  •  Done
• In 1936, library trustee George F. Baker gave the Main Branch forty issues of the New-York Gazette from the 18th century, which had not been preserved anywhere else. Why is this text hidden? It fits into this time period, is relevant to the section, and has a reliable citation.
  • Please un-hide this text.
    •  Done I had a reason for hiding the text, but forgot why i did it. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Could you join the first and second paragraphs of "1960s through 1990s" together? As they are now, they remind me of the effects of a single person needlessly spread over two tables, since they cover the same time period.
  • Could you clarify this? I believe it is already done. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Both paragraphs discuss the growth in the library's collection and building in the 1960s. See: By the mid-1960s, the branch contained 7 million volumes and had outgrown its 88 miles (142 km) of stacks. in the first paragraph and The circulating facilities at the Main Branch continued to grow, and in 1961, the New York Public Library convened a group of six librarians to look for a new facility for the circulating department. Note: On re-reading, I had missed that the second highlighted sentence refers to just the circulating library, but I still think the two paragraphs should be merged. They detail the need to move some of the Main Branch's inventory out of the that branch in the early 1960s.
      •  Question: Are you sure? Because this will make it one large paragraph. Also, the first paragraph is for minor facility improvements. The second discusses the Mid-Manhattan branch itself. It would be weird if, midway into the combined paragraph, the tone switched from facility improvements to a new library branch. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Hm. Alright then. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

21st century

Was the library unaffected by the 911 attacks?

• Yes, these were downtown. Not all of NYC was involved in 9/11 - it was mostly downtown, the major crossings, the rivers, and major streets. epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• The style of your article would dictate that this section header should be "21st-century".
  •  Done Changed because "21st-century" would be an adjective form.
• By 2004, streaks were already blackening the white marble and pollution and moisture were corroding the ornamental statuary, causing architectural details to erode, including the edges of cornices and features on carved faces. Too long; condense. The last clause particularly should be axed for its redundancy.
  •  Done
    • There is still redundancy here: [...] were corroding the ornamental statuary, causing architectural details to erode.
      • @Epicgenius: –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Vami IV: I think this was already removed. epicgenius (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
          • The original bullet-point was; I didn't articulate myself well enough here. The issue here is that the first clause (corroding the ornamental statuary) already says what the second clause (architectural details to erode) says, making it redundant. –Vami
• The Vermont marble structure and the sculpture elements on it were to be cleaned; three thousand cracks were to be repaired; and the roof, stairs, and plazas would be restored. Also condense. I don't quite understand the specificity on the marble; was it sourced from Vermont or from a company called "Vermont Marble"?
  •  Done Vermont marble is the name of a type of marble. Anyway that has been removed.
• New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked Paris's mayor for permission to employ François Jousse, the city engineer responsible for lighting the city's monuments, structures and official buildings. Was this request granted? And I am left to assume that Jousse's hypothetical task was to restore the library, hence his mention here.
  •  Comment: Removed since this isn't important to the article at large, even if this request was granted. I can't find info either way.
• In April 2008, the library announced that the main branch building would be renamed in honor of Stephen A. Schwarzman, in recognition of his donation of $100 million toward the renovation and expansion of the building. This sentence is the wrong way around, else the paragraph is missing mention of Schwarzman's donation.
  •  Done

Milstein Division of U.S. History, Local History and Genealogy

• The Irma and Paul Milstein Division of U.S. History, Local History and Genealogy acquired the holdings of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society in 2008. The acquisition of that other society would better serve the paragraph as its final sentence, and the introduction would be bolstering by its being attached to the sentence immediately following it.
  •  Done

Manuscripts and Archives Division

Without specificity, the latter four bullet points would be better not being bullet points, and the entire list reduced to a sentence beginning with the text These include.

•  Done

Berg Collection of English and American Literature

• The Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection of English and American Literature contains rare books, first editions, and manuscripts in English and American literature. The collection includes over 35,000 works from 400 individual authors. The highlighted text could best be condensed as The Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection of English and American Literature contains over 35,000 rare books, first editions, and manuscripts in English and American literature by 400 individual authors.
  •  Done
• There are now two sentences right next to eachother that begin with the words The collection.
  • "collection" is used again in the sentence following the second "The collection" one. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Rare Book Division

Please condense this bullet-point list, too. It also lacks specificity and reads like a pamphlet.

•  Done

Exterior

This section is comprised of five paragraphs when it should be two: the first about its location (from paragraphs 1 and 4) and about the building (everything else).

•  Partly done Paragraphs 1 and 4 have been combined as they really do describe a similar topic - the location. Everything else is composed of three distinct topics (exterior material, flagpole, courtyard), so they have not been combined. Combining them might make it more confusing for readers. Not that there would be any drawback in keeping these separate anyway, in my opinion at least.
  • I instead split the flagpole and courtyard to a new subsection. epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks good. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Fifth Avenue side

I feel the subsections under this header could be condensed into two or three paragraphs, for the facade sculptures and the friendly neighborhood lions. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• he unsuccessfully sued the people erecting the sculptures "The installers" or "the workers", or something to that effect, would be better here. Bonus: "sculptures" is used again later in the sentence.
  •  Done Condensed the subsections.
  •  Done Reworded the sculptures. epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bryant Park side

Half of this section discusses an interior area of the library, and it makes me wonder if "Exterior" and "Interior" could be made into a single section. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• The section does briefly discuss the interior of the library, but only because it gives the reason why the windows are shaped how they are.
• I'd prefer that we don't make exterior and interior into a single section. This is because both sections are generally long enough to have their own top-level headers. Especially considering the size of the interior section, which you'll see later on within the review. epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Interior

• The positioning of the first sentence sticks out to me . If it isn't public, could it be moved to "Non-public stacks"? If not, could it be moved to the end of the first paragraph?
  • @Vami IV: If we do this, then every paragraph will no longer talk about its own floor. It's not public but not really part of the stacks, either. Do you really feel that these paragraphs should be combined? epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Hm. Fair. I'll retract this one, too. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Originally it contained a coat-check, circulating library, newspaper room, and children's-book room. All at once? If not, change to It successively contained [...].
  • Yes, all at once. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notable spaces

That each one of the following spaces has a header already suggests their notability. I recommend removing this particular header. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Done

Astor Hall

• Astor Hall is the lobby on the first floor. The only reference to a lobby in the article is in the previous section, referring to Astor Hall. "First floor" is redundant if there are no more lobbies, and could either be removed or amended to Astor Hall is the lobby, on the first floor [...].

  •  Done

  • Why are there four citations on this sentence? It's status as a lobby is by no means controversial enough to merit that many citations. Two at most would suffice here.
    • I don't think that it is a major problem (we'd rather have too many citations than none), but will combine the footnotes later. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Conjoin the first two sentences, so that they read something to the effect of: Astor Hall is the lobby, on the first floor, reached from the portico at the top of the stairs to Fifth Avenue.
    •  Done
• There are Bronze busts The capitalization of "bronze" and the link to that article are both things that shouldn't exist here.
  •  Done
• Bust of John Merwen Carrère There are some instances of "Carrere" spelled with the accent while others aren't. They should all have the accented "e", or none of them should.
  •  Done My computer only has the standard Latin characters, not the special accented characters. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• which mirror each other I feel it a safe wager that this is redundant and should be removed.
  •  Done
• at the bottom of the stairways that lead to Astor Hall The previous and succeeding mentions of the stairs (ascend to the second floor [...] the staircases leading from the Astor Hall) has them going from, rather than to, Astor Hall.
  •  Done
• the stair on the left-hand (south) Reverse the order here (the stairs on the south (left) side) or just use the cardinal direction.
  •  Done

Rose Main Reading Room

• The Main Branch's Deborah, Jonathan F. P., Samuel Priest, and Adam R. Rose Main Reading Room is officially located in Room 315 on the third floor of the Main Branch, Change to The Main Branch [...] Rose Main Reading Room, officially Room 315, is located on the third floor [...] If at all possible, move the factoid about the (shortened) common name to this sentence, too.
  •  Done
• The Main Reading Room was renovated and renamed for the Rose family in 1998-1999,[90][102][103] and further renovations to its ceiling were completed in 2016.[103][132] Here would be a place to use a semicolon (replacing the comma).
  •  Done

Public Catalog Room

• There is an information desk on the north side on the room, on one's right side when entering from the rotunda. Originally, visitors would receive card slips with numbers on them, based on their requests for books. They would then be directed to the north or south sides of the Main Reading Room based on whether their number was even or odd, respectively. Too (out of date) much detail, remove, with the exception of the first sentence.

  • Well, this described the reason why the desk is even there in the first place. Also why there's a huge structure in the middle of the Rose Reading Room. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • That first sentence and the last two in the section should join the first paragraph, since they describe the contents of the room.
    •  Done

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above 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.