# Talk:Oregon Public Library

I've reviewed the article against the WP:GA criteria and have the following comments:

Very minor, but the flow of the first para in the lead is a bit stilted, I'd flow a couple of the sentences together to make the prose a bit easier to read.
Not keen on "Early on...", can this be tightened up?
But these aren't going to stop it being a GA.  The Rambling Man 14:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Oregon Public Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


### GA Sweeps: Kept
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is very short relative to the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture which I just recently started editing. One thing I am thankful for is this article has the history section up top. Presently that's not the case w Schomburg, which confused me. The Schomburg's history I will try to minimize although the Schomburg's cultural impact to the Harlem Renaissance is extremely powerful.
For criticisms or questions on this article:

"The building represents a good example of the Arts and Crafts movement in architecture." How about a nice sophisticated quote from a knowledgeable critic of architecture, "good example" is kind of weak.
Are you going to use that formatnum wikipedia template to show Carnegie's grant in present day money ?
Great article though. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I modified the Schomburg this article's layout. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello there, primary author of this article here. Great suggestions, I will see what I can do about implementing them. I haven't been able to find many sources outside of the National Register of Historic Places documents, but I will pore over them again, perhaps there is a good quote to include related to the library. I will also see what I can find at my public library (which is Chicago, so maybe they have something that I couldn't find where I was living previously. Thanks for the input, I was unaware of the template to show money in present-day dollars, if you'd like, feel free to add it. Of course, I can do it as well, I just may not be able to get to it right away. Thanks again. IvoShandor (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see the Schomburg article, I embed the Library template into the NHRP Infobox because I think it looks nicer. But, be aware I am going to remove the locmapin because with Google Maps or Mapquest or whatever your favorite map thingie is, that is outdated and looks ugly. I can't change it here because it's personal preference and this article's layout looks pretty darn good to me. I have to have the library Infobox because it has world-class collections. I will give you a week to check out the locmapin, but like I said, I think it is outdated and ugly. I'll peruse google news on this library to see if an architectural critic wrote about it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I just learned today that some people don't like that template. I suggest you ignore what I said :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I mean the money template, not the Library infobox embed thing. That I like. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)