Talk:Nokomis Library
Add topic | Nokomis Library has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 18, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Nokomis Library appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 705 times (disclaimer). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]The illumination in the photograph is lousy. Can someone take a picture on a sunny day? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Put a request up at WP:PMS. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll givie it a shot. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Nokomis Community Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one; comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an easy pass: good prose, reliable sourcing, no sign of neutrality or stability issues, images are appropriately captioned and tagged. The lead summarizes the contents well and I see no other MOS issues. Copyvio Detector shows no copyright problems, and I found none manually. No main aspects appear to be omitted, though perhaps the library's annual budget could be added. (This is presumably public record somewhere). I've made a few tinkering changes as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree.
Final result is Pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Increased size is misleading
[edit]The article states (twice!) that the 2009-2011 renovation increased the size by 4300 square feet. This is misleading, because the renovation also closed the entire lower floor from public access. Thus the large meeting room, kitchen, restrooms, elevator, stairway & vestibule were all removed from public usage. Plus a large portion of the added space was used for staff offices, lunchroom, and work rooms. The result is that the library, since this renovation, has probably a net reduction in the actual public space available. We complained about this during the citizens advisory committee meetings, but the architect ignored us. T bonham (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)