Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article within the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead is too brief. Per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
"...first published by Melvil Dewey ..." - should mention published in the U.S.

"In 1876 he published" - "In 1876, he published"
"He used the pamphlet, published in more than one version during the year, to solicit comments from other librarians. " - can you expand on the solicitation?
"Dewey applied for and received copyright on the first edition in March 1876." This should be part of the preceding paragraph which is also about the events of 1876.
The paragraph which starts with, "The second edition was published in 1885..." seems more apropos for the Period of adoption (1885–1942) section as it mentions 1885, 1888, 1942.
"Dewey modified and expanded his system considerably for the second edition. In an introduction to that edition Dewey states that "nearly 100 persons hav [sic] contributed criticisms and suggestions ..."" and "The second was 314 pages, with 10,000 index entries; 500 copies were produced. - These 3 sentences would fit better with the paragraph which also discusses the second edition.
"The first edition was 44 pages in length, with 2,000 index entries, and was printed in 200 copies. " - this should be grouped with the info on the 1st addition.

"One of the innovations of the Dewey Decimal system..." - would this paragraph be a better fit in the earlier section?
"in 1894 the first abridged edition" - "in 1894, the first abridged edition"
"in 1930 the Library of Congress " - "in 1930, the Library of Congress "
"However, the Dewey Decimal Classification was more popular among public libraries" - can you expand on this?
"During this time, Dewey Decimal Classification got its first international attention." - a bit clunky
"This would require some changes to the classification" - "This would have required some changes to the classification"

I'm not keen on the header's "(1942 - )". Any other options, maybe something like (1942 - present day)?
"With the deaths of Melvil Dewey, May Seymour, and Dorcas Fellows," - The first mention of Seymour and Fellows shouldn't be about their death when further into the article, we learn a bit more about them.
"the Dewey system had lost the people who had worked" - "the Dewey system lost the people who had worked"
"the bibliographic edition had become" - "the bibliographic edition became"
"However, by now the" - "However, by now, the"
"+ .05 form division for periodicals " - is form the right word here?
which "prevents confusion of different books on the same subject." - which "prevents confusion of different books on the same subject". (period placement)

They need a bit more attention, as identified on the article's talkpage. For example, Lois Mai Chan (2007) is both Ref3 and Ref13.
"Consider as an example a book on the network protocol IPv6. It will be located at 004.62, after general networking books at 004.6. The shelf location is thus defined." - this should be in a Notes section, not in the Reference section.
Authors are sometimes specified as lname fname (Refs 34, 35, 36, 37, etc.) vs. fname lname (Refs 3, 7, 12, etc.) - it's standard to use the lname fname convention.
At least one ref (#44) is missing the publisher's name
page should be denoted as 'p.'; pages as 'pp.' - several refs (i.e. 18, 19, 20, 42, etc.) need to be tidied

Remove the deadlink
Why include the 2006 Straight Dope URL in the EL section vs. incorporating some of its content into the article?
Why include the Dewey Blog?