Jump to content

Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosiestep (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 6 February 2014 (GA Review: This should be it. I'll put it on hold for the usual 7 days.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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]

Lead
  • 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.
History
  • Introduce Melvil Dewey --a sentence or two-- somewhere early in this section
Early development (1873–1885)
  • Three of the four paragraphs start with the word "Dewey" - needs tweaking
  • "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.
Period of adoption (1885–1942)
  • "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"
Forging an identity (1942 - )
  • 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)
  • American Library Association - Place (ALA) after it and clean up later uses, i.e. Administration and publication section
Design
  • "The most common book number system used in US libraries today is the one invented by Charles Ammi Cutter which was originally invented as part of his Cutter Expansive Classification." - How about moving this to the end of the following paragraph?
Influence
  • Maricopa County Library District - Any additional counties? Is this trending?
  • "in Arizona, USA" - in the U.S. state of Arizona
  • "Despite its widespread usage, the classification has been criticized " - this paragraph is about criticism rather than influence
Administration and publication
  • "...edition 20 by John P. Comaromi." - edition 20 was edited by John P. Comaromi
  • "Copyright in editions 1-6 (1876–1919) was held by Dewey himself. Editions 7-10 were held by the publisher, The Library Bureau." - the second sentence doesn't work as a stand-alone
  • "a not-for-profit founded by Melvil Dewey" - a not-for-profit organization founded by Melvil Dewey
  • "Currently" - see WP:PRECISELANG
  • "which is a ten-member international board that meets twice each year." - a ten-member international board which meets twice each year. (nonrestrictive clause)
  • "Dublin, Ohio, United States" - Dublin, Ohio, US
  • "In 2003 the " - In 2003, the
References
  • 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
  • where Online Computer Library Center is the publisher, refer to it by abbreviation, OCLC, throughout the refs
  • Majumder - is there a URL?
Further reading
  • This header should be changed to Bibliography
External links
  • 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?

This should be it. I'll put it on hold for the usual 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]