Talk:Old Corner Bookstore

Recent tenants

Ugh, just, ugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:4203:1A2D:8114:23D1:68C5:3B38 (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Corner Bookstore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Maltazarian (talk · contribs) 09:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Permalinks: (Review start · Reviewer copyedit · Review finish)

Preliminary checks

Done by the reviewer in conjunction with the opening of the review.

Preliminary checks for immediate failures and drive-by nominations.

· The nominator is a major contributor to the article. 94.1% authorship

· The article's images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are free.

· The article does not get caught by Earwig for any obvious copyright violations. EarWig is being weird and saying there is a source with a 43.8% similarity rating but then saying that it can't find any text in that source when I try to do a comparison to it. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that EG has not suddenly decided to start violating copyrights and go forth with the review. Oh yeah: the rest of the EarWig results are a-okay.

· The article is free of valid clean-up banners and does not have many clean-up tags. No banners no tags.

· The article is stable. The only non-bot edits to the article this year are the nominator's.

· The article, if it previously failed a good article review, is free of the problems that led it to do so. First nomination.

· The article is free of any other major problems that will cause it to obviously fail a good article review. Looks alright to me at a first glance.

Review template

You can choose to reply to comments here or in the "Free discussion" section below. The reply buttons here are functional.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

·You can hover over icons to see what they indicate.

1. Is it well written?

→ · A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

→ · a. The prose is clear.

• → · The merchant Herman Brimmer eventually came into possession of the house, paying 1,600 pounds. – Feels like more words are being used to be less clear here; could easily replace "came into possession of" with just "purchased", unless I'm missing something.
  • Changed to "The merchant Herman Brimmer eventually bought the house for 1,600 pounds." - EG
• → · One writer retrospectively said that "the bookstore won enduring fame" during the Ticknor era. – Who though? Leaving out the name opens up for uncertainty if it is the writer cited or someone else's statement being relayed by the writer cited.
  • Added. - EG
• → · When Timothy Harrington Carter leased the space from George Brimmer.. – As this is a new subsection it might be best to clarify what space is being discussed here ("leased space in the corner building"), despite a slight hit to concision.
  • The text has now been changed to "When Timothy Harrington Carter leased the corner building from George Brimmer in 1828", which accurately summarizes the situation. - EG
• → · ..behind the School Street buildings, with seven presses. – We are referring to printing presses here, yes? If so, I think you ought to specify that.
  • Done. - EG
• → · Carter & Hendee remained in the store until about 1833, when they moved to 131 Washington Street.[19] One writer retrospectively said in 1893 that Carter and Hendee "published volumes that even at present lie on the top shelves of libraries" – I don't know if the usage of & in one place and "and" in another an intentional distinction between company and the two men (per MOS:AMPERSAND), which would technically be correct, but regardless I think it's not ideal. If it's unintentional then it's a simple correction, and if intentional I don't see why you couldn't just refer to the company in both cases to avoid the weird sight of an ampersand in one place and "and" in another.
  • Changed to "Carter & Hendee" consistently. - EG
• → · ..and one writer said the store had gained "positive literary and intellectual magnetism".. – Again: who though?
  • Done - this was David Emblidge. - EG
• → · One writer retrospectively wrote that the store was frequently a place "to gather and exchange greetings and ideas".. – Need I say it?
  • Done (though there wasn't a writer named here, so I mentioned the publication). - EG
• → · One source retrospectively described the bookstore.. – Changed it up and used source instead of writer for this one I see. Still want a name.
  • Done - this was David Emblidge, also mentioned above. - EG
• → · In 1898, John Inches obtained an ownership interest in the original corner building and the two School Street annexes. [...] In 1901, Inches obtained a partial ownership stake in the corner building and the School Street from the Sturgis estate; at the time, Inches was planning a new building there. – Is "the original corner building" a different structure than the "corner building"? It is the only instance of "original" being added before "corner building" in the whole article. If it's the same one, is "an ownership interest" and a "partial ownership stake" not referring to the same thing? If it is, then "obtained a partial ownership stake" should be swapped for something like "expanded his ownership share" as the former phrasing is generally used for when someone has no prior ownership, not for expanding one's stake in the building. If this is an artifact of source inconsistency, then it's a bit trickier, but attributing the statements would be a start.
  • Yeah, it was just sloppy proofreading. The "original corner building" is the same as the "corner building" so I removed the "original". I reworded to "In 1901, Inches expanded his ownership stake in the corner building and the School Street structures from the Sturgis estate." - EG
• → · One writer at the time said that the building had remained relatively unchanged over the years, other than the installation of bow windows on the facade. – Argh!
  • Clarified. - EG

→ · b. The prose is concise.

• → · Although the building itself was nondescript, the land had a high land value. – If you merge this with the end of the previous paragraph (..the building was valued at only $7,000, one percent of the land valuation) to something like "the property had a high l building was nondescript and only valued at $7,000, one percent of the property's high land value." you make it more concise while avoiding the double use of "land" and having the text flow more smoothly.
  • Done. - EG
• → · The buildings on School Street date from no later than 1828 and are all three stories high. – Any particular reason to mention the dates again? It's covered in the history section.
  • Removed. - EG

· c. The spelling and grammar are correct.

• · Yep.

· B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

· a. It complies with the manual of style guideline for lead sections.

• · Material is due for inclusion, supported by the body text etc. etc.

· b. It complies with the manual of style guideline for layout.

• · It even has short section summaries.

· c. It complies with the manual of style guideline for words to watch.

• · No issues that I could see.

· d. It complies with the manual of style guideline for fiction.

• · The only fiction here is that which was once sold in the building.

· e. It complies with the manual of style guideline for list incorporation.

• · This one does have a list. To evaluate whether or not the list is compliant the purpose of the list must be taken into consideration, and this is important here as the content of the list can and is presented as prose, but spread out over many paragraphs. The list is used as a supplement consolidating information into an easy-to-parse overview. This is better done as a list as the prose version of it would be an awful paragraph reading something like: "The building was occupied by Carter & Hendee between 1828 and 1833. The building was occupied by Allen & Ticknor between 1833 and 1837. The building was occupied by.." so the basic criteria of a list actually being a good idea in the first place is met.
• → · I was thinking "shouldn't this be floated to the right", but lo and behold, in the wiki markup I see "float:right; width:330px;" as hidden text! Why have you chosen not to float it? Surely it's the right move! As for the width, setting a fixed one isn't ideal due to screen size considerations, but with tables this thin that isn't really an issue (although, if you wish to use it, you should still consider using max-width instead).
  • Yeah... that was totally unintentional (I wanted to see what it looked like without floating, but forgot to re-float the table to the right). I changed it to a width of 30em. - EG
• · Part of MOS:LIST#Tables is accessibility, which has more information at MOS:DTAB, and this table was not using the "scope" attribute and had no any designated row headers. That's an issue. I went ahead and fixed it without changing the way the table looks, but you should look at the fix to make sure I'm not messing something up without realizing it.
  • Looks good to me. - EG

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

· A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

• · List is there.

· B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

• · There are no uncited claims in the body text.

• · The sources cited are reliable. I don't see anything that could be considered questionable.

• → · Pages cited for Wilson seem to be about 15 ahead of what they should be for me, how are you accessing the book? Could you double-check that it's correct for your version?
  • I used this version of the book, which covers pages 172-178 (except 174). - EG
• → · [23] gives 1829 as the date of Timothy Harrington Carter leasing the building. [40] says people often state the opening was in 1828 but it was actually in 1829, but that's the reverse situation of this, and 1829 is indeed the date given for the opening. So what's going on?
  • Basically, the building was leased in 1828 and the store there opened the next year. Some sources conflate this info, saying the store opened in 1828 (the year the building was leased). - EG
    • For the record: this got cleared up in the "Free discussion" section below. - M
• → · [65] doesn't really say a desire to focus on publishing was behind the lack of desire to operate the store.
  • Removed - this was a leftover from a previous version of the article. - EG

· C. It contains no original research.

• · There isn't really anything noteworthy that I'd consider OR-related.

· D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• · EarWig didn't catch anything during the preliminary checks and I didn't catch anything during the spot-check.

Record of source spot-check

This is collapsed so the page doesn't get filled page with a record of spot-checks reporting that no action is required. Anything that is relevant for the nominator to know will also be placed outside of this box.

"Site" section

• [4] checks out
• [10] checks out (via [16] confirming that the Old South Meeting House is next to the Old Corner Bookstore)

"History" section

• [16] checks out

"Early history" subsection

• [25] checks out
• [10] checks out
• [35] checks out
• [23] checks out but the pages given in the citations for this source seem to be off to me and I don't see any indication of it being a difference between editions; going to have to ask about that.

"Use as bookstore" subsection

• [35] checks out

"1828–1833: Carter & Hendee" subsection

• [23] gives 1829 as the date of Timothy Harrington Carter leasing the building, and [40] says people often state the opening was in 1828 but it was actually in 1829, but that's the reverse situation of this, and 1829 is indeed the date given for the opening. So what's going on here?
• [40] checks out

"1833–1865: William Ticknor and partners" subsection

• [40] checks out
• [35] checks out
• [64] checks out

"1865–1903: Successive bookstores" subsection

• [65] doesn't really say a desire to focus on publishing was behind the lack of desire to operate the store
• [38] checks out
• [89] checks out, "for bibliophiles" is borderline as it just says it is a pleasant lounge in general, but the parts that follow make it clear it is referring to book-reading activities, so I will give it a pass.

"Repurposing and preservation" subsection

• [65] checks out

"Mid-1900s to late 1950s" subsection

• [36] checks out
• [65] checks out

"1959–1963: Proposed demolition and preservation" subsection

• [88] checks out
• [124] checks out
• [25] checks out

"1964–1997: Boston Globe offices, bookstore revival" subsection

• [139] checks out
• [140] checks out
• [25] checks out

"1998–present" subsection

• [155] checks out
• [166] checks out

"Architecture" section

• [21] checks out

"Other structures" subsection

• [169] checks out

"Impact and legacy" subsection

• [21] checks out
• [177] checks out]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

· A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

• · The nominator has, unsurprisingly, covered all the bases expected for a GA on a building like this one.

· B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• · I wouldn't say the article goes off-topic and where there is attention to detail it is warranted.

4. Is it neutral?

· A. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• · I didn't see any issues with this. Both praise and criticism have been covered when opinions on the building and its operations have been discussed.

5. Is it stable?

· A. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• · Per preliminary checks.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

· A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

• · Per preliminary checks.

· B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• · Images are clearly relevant and the captions are concise and accurate.

Overall: · We are done here.

Free discussion

Thanks for the comments so far Maltazarian, I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@EpicGenius Ok I finished up the review, very little came up during the spot-check, which is nice. I'm tired right now so I will check the fixes you made when I wake up, and, unless something unexpected comes up, pass the article. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: Thanks. I've fixed these as well. BTW, the rest of my username is all lowercase so I didn't get your ping, but you were tired so I can see why. Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Ugh.. I know it is, I've pinged you multiple times before, but yeah I was tired and ended up CamelCasing your username for some reason. Sorry. I will go ahead check the fixes and hopefully pass the article. By the way, I can't access the pages on the book via that Google Books link. I went and got it off the Internet Archive Open Library and they were different there. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius I was saying that [23] is not making the mistake [40] speaks of. The correct statement is that the lease was signed in 1828 and the store opened in 1829, and the mistake that [40] speaks of is authors saying it was leased and opened in 1828; [23] is doing neither. Instead it says the lease was signed in 1829 and the store opened in 1829, but it is cited inline for the statement that the lease was signed in 1828. That's why I'm confused. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian, that is very strange. My version of [23] (Wilson 2004, p. 175), says that "The biggest changes to the structure at School and Washington came in 1828, when young Timothy Harrington Carter obtained a lease from the building owner, George Brimmer" (the opening is sourced not to [23] but to another citation). [40] says that the lease was in 1828 and the store opened in 1829. [40] also says that there is a claim that the store opened in 1828, and that this claim is false. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It almost says exactly that in the 1994 edition of the book, but with a single character changed: it says 1829 instead of 1828. Clearly this was a mistake that was corrected for the newer edition of the book, which you are using (which can be safely assumed to also be behind the page number differences). Classic example of why one must make sure that differences between editions of a book is not the reason why someone else's citations don't check out.

With that cleared up, the article is ready to be passed. This one certainly has some DYK potential too, if you are interested in pursuing that. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Yeah, the difference in editions definitely accounts for the discrepancy. I was originally going to nominate it for DYK last week, but I had a ton of DYK noms up at the time and didn't want to overwhelm DYK – Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Old Corner Bookstore

• ... that a Boston literary landmark (pictured) became a fast-food restaurant? Source: Casey, Ross (July 13, 2011). "Building on history: Restaurant is set to be the latest tenant in the Old Corner Bookstore building, a site that has mirrored Boston's commerce and culture". The Boston Globe. p. B.5
  • ALT1: ... that Boston's Old Corner Bookstore (pictured), once a gathering place for New England authors, later became a fast-food restaurant? Source: Casey, Ross (July 13, 2011). "Building on history: Restaurant is set to be the latest tenant in the Old Corner Bookstore building, a site that has mirrored Boston's commerce and culture". The Boston Globe. p. B.5
  • ALT2: ... that a fundraiser to save Boston's Old Corner Bookstore (pictured), criticized as "absurd and farfetched", raised $30,000 in two months? Source: "Boston Councillors Hit Old Bookstore Drive". Fall River Herald News. United Press International. "Old Corner Book Shop Buyers Collect $30,000". The Boston Globe. December 2, 1960. p. 14.
  • ALT3: ... that Boston's Old Corner Bookstore (pictured) experienced a "toboggan-slide from fame" after its namesake bookstore moved away? Source: "Hope to Save Old Corner". The Herald News. United Press International. October 17, 1960. p. 16.
  • ALT4: ... that at one point, one magazine said "all Boston may be said to pass through the Old Corner Bookstore (pictured) in a day"? Source: Kirsner, Scott (November 1, 1997). "Boston.com opens physical store". Editor & Publisher. Vol. 130, no. 44. p. 44.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WLVT-TV

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 815 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC).

• I'll start the review per WP:QPQ :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 13:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• I just looked at the original "fast food" sentence, since I like the first DYK hook the best. Its citation corresponds to ref 159, and it looks good to me! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)