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

All resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) The building's gigantic interior is its most striking physical feature, universally commented on, and "extensive" doesn't express that at all. EEng (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "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) Further down you seem to have changed your mind and decided that the theft indeed belongs in the lead (which I've trimmed in other ways). I've rephrased this passage as well. EEng (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "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

All done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"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  Done EEng (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "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  Done Completely rewritten. EEng (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "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) Ritchie -- are you OK with this? EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "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}}  Done EEng (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "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. I really think it should stay as is. It does double-duty on two different points: reinforcing Mrs. Widener's "hands on" approach and insistence on certain things, and the fact that the actual cost is private and still not really known. The quote happens to handle both points well, and amusingly (there aren't many people Harvard officials are "terrified" of!). EEng (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 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 I finally just took it out. EEng (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 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

All done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"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

Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. See next bullet. 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 I understand the the main head is enought, but an important aspect of the library's story is the near-awe with which it was treated by the press. The subheads, and detail about this elaborately choreographed dedication, telegraph a sense of the fawning coverage and the lengths Harvard officials would go to give Mrs. Widener the grand ceremony she wanted. EEng (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "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  Done 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) Ritchie, is this still a problem? EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) No, this now appears to be resolved. The article is still a little bit top-heavy with images, but it's not too far off being GA quality now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)  Done

Widener Memorial Rooms

Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"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) Actually, I've changed it around to eliminate the parens. EEng (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "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

Extended content

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)  Done Works for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "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)  Done EEng (talk) 17:33, 7 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

Extended content

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) Ritchie, can we let this slide for now? It will take me some time to track this down, it seems. Small #s of are allowed for GA. EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  Done Sourced, at last. EEng (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "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

Extended content

"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

Extended content

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) Ritchie, can you show me what you mean on this? EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Okay, I have part-paraphrased the quotation in question, which is what I've been getting at several times in the review. I'm not talking about removing the quotations or cutting down on their content at all. Rather, the quotations were not written with the Wikipedia "house style" in mind, and hence it would be beneficial to copyedit them, while still retaining the original meaning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)  Done EEng (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Burglary and theivery incidents

Extended content

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) Ritchie, you OK with this? EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 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) Ritchie, you OK with this? EEng (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think this is a showstopper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Renovation

Extended content
"—​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

Addressed below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote lettering as in this version [3] A and F - quotations should be in normal font  Done} EEng (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) B - extra brackets around the wikilink for bibliophiles  Not done That's the way it's supposed to be -- the word bibliophile is interpolated. EEng (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I think footnote D has far too much information and belongs in a separate Gore Hall article  Done Removed EEng (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I - "the lamp on the desk an (unsigned) Tiffany" - worth explaining what "Tiffany" is in this context  Done EEng (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Footnotes K and R each have a tag I haven't been able to determine which uncle exactly this is, and when the six years is measured from. I will someday, but it will take some work. Small numbers of and are allowable for GA. EEng (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) L - the large quotation would be better paraphrased. We still need to have that talk about quotations. EEng (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) In this particular case: an essential part of the article is communicating the way the building was seen as "state-of-the-art" for the time. The quoted passage (which is, of course, PD) shows the attitudes of the time ("Wow! Elevators! Steam heat! Dynamos!") and paraphrasing would simply drain all the awe out of it. EEng (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

• I would like some good evidence that " Small numbers of [clarification needed] and [citation needed] are allowable for GA" as my experience has shown this is not the case. The GA criteria point 2 ("Factually accurate and verifiable") - says "all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". A means "this statement has been challenged", and therefore does not meet this part of the GA criteria. However, small amounts of unsourced content (where they are obvious things not likely to be challenged eg: "Harvard is a university in Cambridge, MA") can be acceptable for a GA, which may be what you're getting confused with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• does not mean the content has been challenged, just that someone thinks a source should be supplied, which is quite a different thing. Challenged means someone asserting that the statement is unverifiable i.e. that no source exists, whereas simply means Go find the source. See the documentation for {{citation needed}}: "The template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. Other templates are available for other or more specific issues ... For example, claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with {{Dubious}}..." I'm the one who added the , and I'm also the one who wrote the text, and I'm certainly not challenging material I myself wrote. I'm just reminding myself and other editors that a source should be supplied sooner or later.
• is certainly not a challenge to the material in any way. It just means "Perhaps someone can explain this better, or supply more detail."

EEng (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I just want to pop in here and say that there isn't any evidence that an article has ever been passed as a GA with any kind of maintenance tag. In other words, if it isn't a pressing issue that demands immediate attention, use the talk page to make suggestions for improvement, not tags in the body of the article. A GA article should not have any tags, and if it does, it can be reassessed as a fail in the immediate future. It doesn't matter if the nominator is the one adding the tags. For what it's worth, instead of using tags in this matter, I often create "Issues and errata" sections on the talk page for the very purpose you describe. You may want to think about doing this instead. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"A GA can't have any tags." Which of WP:GACR criteria 1-6 is that? (Let's leave aside e.g. -- which at least potentially may run afoul of the WP:V criterion -- and suppose we're talking about .) EEng (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time for this kind of silliness, so this will be my last and final comment. Up above, you made the extraordinary claim that "small numbers of [clarification needed] and [citation needed] are allowable for GA". I am curious where and how you got this strange idea as it is manifestly false. Finally, I want to mention that I am curious why you would argue for the weakening of our standards and criteria when the very notion of a review is intended to strengthen and improve an article. I don't have the free time required to figure out this high strangeness, but I am very disappointed in your approach. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What I tend to do in the case of is see if the information is important to meet the "broad in coverage" and "focused" criteria. If it isn't, I remove the text near the tag, which causes it to disappear. The article will then meet the GA criteria (all else being equal) and I can pass the review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

EEng, consensus on WT:GAN is pretty much unanimous that the review won't pass until all tags are addressed one way or another. Do you have any way of correcting the issues in them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens there. You'll notice the s are down to 1.

In the meantime, there are a few "Ritchie, are you OK with this..."-type bumps waiting for you above. Can you take a look at them? I just want to be clear you're OK with everything I've done so far. EEng (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I need an hour or so to go through everything thoroughly. In the meantime, I see that @ChrisGualtieri: has also criticised the number of quotations in the article. I wouldn't go quite as far as his thoughts, but I do stand by my earlier point that a lot of the quotes should be paraphrased, so the article has a more balanced tone that the reader would expect. I wasn't as bothered about this as the tags, as I knew I could fix that issue myself, and indeed have done a few already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there are several dozen error messages in the reference section that need to be adressed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not part of the GA criteria, as far as I was aware. And I was kind of hoping a bot or gnome would have done it in the last week. If there are no takers, muggins here will have a go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Already fixed. EEng (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Update

Okay, I've looked back through the article, and now...

• I'm happy with everything reported by EEng above
• There is still one left. I can cite the fact to Barry & Stef's Travel Blog but that's not a reliable source, so that can't be used
• A tag has appeared
• There are still too many quotations and images. There is discussion upthread as to why this is, due to problems with excess copying of nonfree content, required copyediting, and the quotations not conforming to a neutral POV.

I'm afraid I think I'm going to have to close the review at this stage. I really wanted to avoid doing this, as you have worked very hard on this, but the 7 day period for being "on hold" is up and there seems to be still quite a bit of work left to do. I did think about going through the article and directly fixing everything myself, but it's just too much of a slog. I would recommended possibly finding a simpler topic to take to GA first, such as Charles R. Apted, as this does look like a tough nut to crack. All that said, the article has been improved and I really don't want the closure to sour your experience of this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hold it.

• I've done (I think) everything you've suggested (including a great deal that's not part of the GA criteria) with minor exceptions I've explained and you've agreed to. This took a lot of time. I don't mind, because it's improved the article greatly, but it's had the effect of dragging things out greatly compared to the time it would take if we just stuck to the GACR.
• I've been waiting several days for you to give the OK in the several places above I asked for it, after which I thought we'd review where we are and finish up (especially figuring out how to resolve the questions of the quotes and the images).
• Meanwhile, you may think I'm joking re tags being OK, but the fact is that over at Talk:GA I've (a) quoted a guideline saying explicitly that tags are forbidden only to the extent they relate to the GACR, and (b) twice asked for anyone to simply explain what in the criteria has anything to do with e.g. , and got no answer at all. If we have to remove it I will, but first I'd like to understand why. Doesn't that seem fair?
• The two areas we've been putting off are images and quotations.

• With all due respect, I don't see how "too many images" come under the criteria, and even assuming it does, it's a matter for discussion what constitutes "too many". The only editor (other than you and me) to comment likes it like it is [4]. You may be seeing something different because of a different browser or screen size or whatever, but surely it's a minimum for you to explain what problem you're seeing. (One of the questions I tagged for your response above was exactly about this.)
• And you've said nothing about nonfree content -- in any event, almost all the quoted material is PD, what isn't is clearly fair-use, so again it's just a question of judgment we should discuss -- assuming it comes under GACR in the first place. And where did you say anything about a POV problem with the quotes?

• There's no fixed 7-day hold period, so why the hurry? It's not like you and I have hit an impasse. I really need to ask you to reconsider.

EEng (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me clear up a few things first. I don't like the concept of "failing" a GA review - that's not nice and aside from a "get out of here" quickfail, it's not true. It simply means (in my view) there is no consensus that the article meets the GA criteria at this time. I did give two examples of where I had fixed up quotations and images, and hoped (possibly erroneously) that the rest would be sorted out.

To try and move things forward, what I would recommend doing is having a look at some other GAs that are rich in quotes and images - Hammond organ and Ashford, Kent are two GAs I've done, and the reviews were good because they both involved substantial layout changes during the review. Have a look and see how quotations are structured and how images tend to be quite restricted to only a handful per section, with substantial space between them. Hopefully that will give you some idea as to what I'm getting at above.

I think I've given you the wrong end of the stick regarding PD content. Just because you can copy something, it doesn't follow you should. Most PD content is getting on for 100 years old, if not older than that already, and English that the modern Wikipedia reader recognises has changed.

I suspect that once the quotations have been replaced with straight paraphrasing, the prose will be sufficiently different that it would be beneficial to start a fresh GA review from scratch. This is exactly what we did with Noel Lee (executive), where I did GA1, failed it due to a lack of broad coverage, helped improve the content, put it up for GA2 a few weeks later and Wizardman passed it as a GA in about 24 hours. I don't see any reason why we can't do the same here, as it seems to have worked quite well.

In any case, please don't take the close here as an indication that your efforts have been wasted, or that this article will never reach GA. That just isn't the case, and I'm glad you've continued to work on the existing comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me turn it around. Just because you can paraphrase something, it doesn't follow you should. You seem to take it as a given that paraphrasing is preferred. Why? Where do you get this idea that our readers can't read (or won't want to read) well-written material from 100 years ago? You say Ashford, Kent and Hammond Organ are "rich in quotes", but they're not. These are, literally, the only "quotations" of any kind in the entire Ashford article:

• Cade is shown conversing with "Dick, the Butcher from Ashford".
• In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ashford became known for nonconformism. A local resident, John Brown was executed for heresy in 1511, and may have inspired the later namesake of the song "John Brown's Body"
• The relevant verse is: "True, a new mistress now I chase, / The first foe in the field; / And with a stronger faith embrace / A sword, a horse, a shield."
• The Borough of Ashford lies on the eastern edge of the ancient forest of "Andredsweald" or "Anderida". Brandon Lewis, High Streets Minister said he would "encourage all businesses in Ashford to sign up and be part of this excellent opportunity to boost their trade in the town centre."
• The club was formed in 1891 as Ashford United but was renamed to Ashford Railway Works in 1909 before settling on the name "Town" in 1930. The club was reformed in 2011 after financial difficulties, including the resignation of owner Tony Betteridge and became known once more as "United".

That's extensive use of quotations??? But most importantly, what in the WP:GACR has anything to do with this?

A little bit back you referred to "problems with excess copying of nonfree content, required copyediting, and the quotations not conforming to a neutral POV." What copying of nonfree content? What required copyediting? What about the quotations has anything to do with NPOV? You keep saying things like this but never explain. EEng (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All I can really add is that the article as it stands just doesn't quite conform to the layout I would expect of most GAs I read. For a different example, try Elizabeth I of England, that's a featured article and has a few more quotations. Alternatively, if you think the result of a GA review has been unfair or incorrect, you are within your rights to take it to a Good article reassessment. Or you could start up a formal peer review where anyone is welcome to comment. Ultimately, a review of this nature has to come down to the opinions of two people, and while that works most of the time, occasionally things fall through the cracks. I don't think we're going to get any further without an input from a third party on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The article as it stands just doesn't quite conform to the layout I would expect of most GAs I read." See, this is what I'm talking about. You're supposed to be reviewing against the GACR, not against what you expect or what you've seen in other articles. GACR requires conformance with MOS:LAYOUT. Can you tell me what about the article is out of conformance with that. Please don't answer by pointing to some other article you think I should look at. Just tell me, specifically by section #, what requirement of LAYOUT is violated.

Yes, opinions are involved here, but the only opinions that matter here are opinions about whether the GACR are adhered to. If you can't tell me what part of GACR (or the subsidiary guidelines it points to) is being violated by a given bit of the article, then it's not relevant to this review and we should move on to your next concern. After the review is over I'd be very happy to work with you on any aspect of the article you're interested in improving, but for now I must ask you to stick to the GA requirements alone.

I see you know Martinevans123 and I'd like him to come help us. EEng (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion

The article fails 1a because the prose is not clear and concise, thus it is not well-written. For this reason, WP:QUOTE applies. The article also has excessive amounts of unrelated information that would be a WP:COATRACK issue - such as "legends" not even about the library itself. In terms of balance and scope, more attention is given to "Burglary and other incidents" than other aspects - like the design. The article is so wrapped up in itself that it comes off as pure puffery - another key aspect of the criteria. EEng has crafted an article which is so full of itself that it comes across as snobbish and overtly grandiose. It is one of the few articles that actually pains me to read. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: - can you be a little more specific? EEng is working through the quotations at the moment, and hopefully that will resolve most of the concerns. Unfortunately your opinion of the content is a little woolly and difficult to address unless you go into specifics, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Essentially - if you are going to use a quote, make it count. So many of the quotes being used are best handled in paraphrasing. The background section uses a chopped up quote about Gore Hall, this would be a good example since it is already close to paraphrasing. Another would be (Behind the card catalogs, and "barely large enough for a single table", was once a separate Radcliffe Reading Room, to which female students were restricted "for fear their presence would distract the studious Harvard men" in the Main Reading Room[22]—​though by World War II women "could go into the [Main Reading Room] and use the encyclopedias and things like that there, if we stood up, but we couldn't sit down".) which is a jumble. Though this is a more of what I was trying to indicate:

In the Memorial Rooms, after a benediction by Bishop William Lawrence,[7] a portrait of Harry Widener was unveiled, then remarks delivered by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (speaking on "The Meaning of a Great Library"‍[44] on behalf of Eleanor Widener) and Lowell ("For years we have longed for a library that would serve our purpose, but we never hoped to see such a library as this").[45] The Transcript continued: After the ceremony of presenta­tion, the doors were thrown open, and both graduates and under­graduates had an opportu­ni­ty to see the beauties and utilities of this important univer­sity acquisition.[7]

This is jumbled and coat-racking. It flips back and forth with strange syntax and is penetrated by parenthesizes of a questionable nature. It then concludes with another descriptive quote which for all intentions is a flowery excuse to further make the library and its workings more important and grandiose. The sheer number and tone collectively makes this article not neutral and not a disinterested presentation of a topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I think this comes under the general scope of sorting out the quotations, so when that's done I'll take another look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Picking up where we left off

@Ritchie333 and Martinevans123: Ritchie, can you go through and just add {{done}} to whichever points you think are handled but not yet explicitly closed? Then we can handle the few that are left, including quotes and images. ME123, any smartass assistance you can render will be appreciated. EEng (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• There was one copyedit, which I've done - everything else outstanding is from "Summary" downwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! All those beautiful purple and green collapse boxes! Thanks for slogging through it all. Martinevans123 is just standing around beancounting instead of helping out. Are you OK with the images (at least for the purposes of this review)? You'll notice I dropped the headshot of Mrs. Widener, and there's a good deal more text in the Background section than there was when you did your original run-through. EEng (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

Okay, regarding images ... File:HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary SecondFloorPlan SneadIronWorks.jpg needs a caption, and for the remainder, I think all the ones on the right hand size from "Conception and gift" down to "Burglary and other incidents" could benefit from being reduced in size, as at the moment they appear one after the other without a gap. File:HarvardCollegeLibrary HardLaborBookplate.jpg is supposed to be at the start of "Burglary and other incidents" but instead it appears towards the end of the section, because there's not enough space on screen to accomodate all the right-facing images from earlier. This is what I was getting at regarding Ashford, Kent - there are lots of images but they're spaced evenly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, not every image has to have a caption (WP:CAP -- see the lead), so it seems to me that the two images at Building -- an exterior shot and a floorplan -- are sufficiently self-explanatory, given they're in the section describing the exterior and the floorplan!

Beyond that, I've taken a baby step by reducing most (not all) the images about 10%, but this brings up a new problem: counterintuitively, this frequently increases the vertical height of the image box, because while reducing the image's width reduces its height proportionally, the amount of caption text remains fixed, and with a narrow box the caption part simply has to expand vertically. Further, narrow caption boxes mean more linebreaks, and this means more space on any given line is wasted as white space. Thus, reducing the upright param can actually make the image boxes taller overall! I've tried to trim the captions a bit here and there as well to ameleorate this problem.

But before we continue on images, there's a puzzle that we need to penetrate, which is that I'm not seeing the phenomena you're talking about -- especially that all the image stack is pushing down the "bookplate" image. What browswer - screen size - zoom % are you using? In your WP preferences, what is the Preferences > Appearance > Thumbnail size setting? (Also, if it's IE, what text size are you using -- medium, larger, etc.). I have a very wide screen, which should make these problems worse, but I'm still not seeing it. EEng (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just done a lot of juggling and resizing of images, and dropped one or two more. Whatcha think now? -- EEng, January 17

<bump>Ritchie333

Okay, things are getting better, but current problems I think are :

• File:HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary Reading c1915.jpg through to File:Widener Library, Harvard University, Cambridge MA.jpg doesn't seem to have any space

They're not supposed to. They form a sequence from outside to inside.

• File:HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary SneadAdvertisement 1915.jpg could do with being cropped to just show the picture

The whole point is to show that suppliers were falling all over themselves to let potential customers know that their product had been selected for this project. There's even a floor-polishing equipment manufacturer that advertised that their floor-polishing machine was used!

• I don't see the relevance of File:HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary CardCatalogs 1915.jpg to the Gutenberg Bible Theft

It's not. You said you wanted the images more spaced out, so I did. Images can't be spaced out AND always relevant to the sections they end up in. However, I did put it there so that it would be near the image of the catalog card, which comes right after. Many readers will never have seen a bank of catalog drawers, much less a catalog card. I think I linked card catalog while I was at it, in one or the other caption.

• There are some lists there. Can't remember if they were there and I didn't notice, but I think they should be represented as prose

If you're talking about the bullet list at Widener_Library#Departmental_and_special_libraries that's exactly the sort of stuff WP:EMBED#Long_sequences says should be that way.

EEng (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What I really think is, unfortunately, we don't seem to be closing the gap. I'm not going to close the review just yet, but with the seconder saying the review should be failed, I think in all honesty you're better off working on this in the background and letting somebody do a fresh review from scratch. I don't think I've done a GA review this long either in terms of time or content, and it seems like I'd have to start all over again from scratch. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotations

Of course we're closing the gap. All that's left is the idea that more of the quotes should be paraphrased. As far as I'm concerned they're fine, despite one editor's personal preference for paraphrasing, and I don't see where the guidelines favor that particular point of view. An important aspect of the subject is the way this new building was presented in the press, touted as a modern marvel, etc etc. Case in point: the following quotation, from the end of the Dedication section:

After the ceremony of presenta­tion, the doors were thrown open, and both graduates and under­graduates had an opportu­ni­ty to see the beauties and utilities of this important univer­sity acquisition.

Another editor calls this "a flowery excuse to further make the library and its workings more important and grandiose." That's silly. This is an illustration of the respect given to, and pride taken in, institutions like libraries back then -- especially this one. The article sets the quote off to exhibit that attitude for the reader to observe -- to see this as the article itself puffing the library's "beauties and utilities" shows a complete failure of critical literacy. You would not, today, find a full-page spread (front page, if I recall) in the Boston Globe devoted solely to the dedication of a college library. It's important to convey the sense of awe and reverence with which the library was received, and that's just as (maybe more) important than its physical dimensions and so on, and the quotes do that very effectively (while giving pleasure to the reader who appreciates good writing).

As a further example, another editor says the article "has excessive amounts of unrelated information that would be a WP:COATRACK issue - such as "legends" not even about the library itself" i,e, the legends that Mrs. Widener wanted all future Harvardians to learn to swim, and/or arranged for there to always be ice cream at Harvard meals. I'm pinging DGG, who is peculiarly qualified to opine on whether those do or don't belong in this article.

Even if there's more debate to be had on the quotes, it's not relevant to this review. "Concise and well-written" doesn't mean "paraphrase most or all quotes". This is a matter of judgment which can be further hashed out during normal editing. EEng (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think some of this a little excessive, in particular footnotes E, H, J, and K . The two quotes in 2.1 are unnecessary altogether, the quote in 2.3 does not need indenting, And as a matter of style, I think that many of the paragraphs should be combined. For a subject like this, a choppy style seems a little primitive. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[The above comments refer to this version of the article

I did a pass over and you're right about merging some of the paragraphs. [5] I rewrote to eliminate the first quote in 2.1, and ran in the quote in 2.3. I also killed notes E and J. However, I kept the last quote in 2.1, and note H, because I really feel that contemporary descriptions of the dedication, and of the "marvels" of the building itself (as seen at the time) fill out its place in popular perception of the time. I also kept K because I think it needs to be clear that there are some things Widener (and, in fact, Harvard overall) doesn't collect. EEng (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Still some quotes are not cited or appear in there source like "pile of stones and rubbish". Some notes like reference O are inappropriate and entirely off topic. I have no idea why Another story, holding that Eleanor Widener donated a further sum to underwrite perpetual availability of ice cream (purportedly Harry Widener's favorite dessert) in Harvard dining halls, is also without foundation. is even in this article because it is not about the library at all. The entire "Swim-requirement, ice-cream, and other legends" section is without actual use to the article at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The "pile of stones and rubble" citation is given directly at the start of note D [6]. The "legends" material absolutely belongs, because the claim is these were conditions of Mrs. Widener's gift of the library. EEng (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Act IV

Okay, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat and despite EEng's best efforts, there is no consensus to pass this as a GA at this time. What I would recommend doing is creating a peer review and inviting all interested parties in there to thrash out the problems, then bring it back here for another GA. I know it sounds like clipboard wielding, and we should WP:IAR, but the review has been going for two and a half weeks, which is something of a marathon by GA standards, and it really is time I gave my full attention to something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

GA is not a consensus process. It's just meant to be the opinion of one reviewer -- you. Like it says at WP:Reviewing good articles

The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight. Anyone, including unregistered users, can nominate an article and (subject to the next two paragraphs) any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required

You're free, as you have, to ask for other opinions, but as seen above to good points raised by DGG have been attended to, and the objections raised by another editor have been thoroughly rebutted. On January 4 you said, "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" I've attended to every point you've raised, so unless there's some point I've missed the obvious thing to do is pass it -- there's been way too much work put in here for it to be tossed away now.

After tha, if some other editor then thinks you've made a mistake he's free to raise it at GAR. EEng (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A 70K GA review is anything but lightweight! Obviously you weren't going to agree on this - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear what exactly needs doing

The review has gone on as long as it has because most of the points you raised along the way aren't relevant to GACR. As discussed before, I've been very happy to adopt those ideas because they have improved the article. But you can't then turn around and say the review is too long.

On January 12 you listed your concerns as

• There is still one left...
• A tag has appeared
• There are still too many quotations and images. There is discussion upthread as to why this is, due to problems with excess copying of nonfree content, required copyediting, and the quotations not conforming to a neutral POV.

The cn has been fixed. A doesn't violate GACR. I asked you,"What copying of nonfree content? What required copyediting? What about the quotations has anything to do with NPOV?" and your only response was to raise something entirely different, which was "All I can really add is that the article as it stands just doesn't quite conform to the layout I would expect of most GAs I read" -- and that has nothing to do with GACR either.

Then you raised some questions about image placement, I answered those, and you said nothing to suggest those answers weren't satisfactory. And finally we talked about the quotes, and DGG dropped by to comment on that, and I incorporated most of his suggestions (explaining why I rejected two of them). You haven't said anything about why there are any problems now there, either.

Now then... If you're going to fail the review, you need to say what the unaddressed problem is. I think it's fair, at this point, to insist that this be something you've raised already, so please quote something you actually said earlier in the review. EEng (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)