Talk:Atlanta Central Library

Request interior images

Can anyone feel free to provide the interior image of the library, such as the atrium. Wpcpey (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Uploaded a couple interior photos of the library on Commons and included one in the article. Derrellwilliams (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Atlanta Central Library

• ... that the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) was described as looking like a jail? Source: Meier, Allison (March 24, 2016). "As Met Breuer Opens, Two of the Architect's Buildings Face an Uncertain Fate". Hyperallergic.
  • ALT1: ... that one Georgia politician, who described the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) as looking like a jail, wanted to replace the library less than three decades after its completion? Source: Meier, Allison (March 24, 2016). "As Met Breuer Opens, Two of the Architect's Buildings Face an Uncertain Fate". Hyperallergic.
  • ALT1B: ... that less than three decades after its completion, the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) was threatened with demolition? Source: Meier, Allison (March 24, 2016). "As Met Breuer Opens, Two of the Architect's Buildings Face an Uncertain Fate". Hyperallergic.
  • ALT2: ... that the Atlanta Public Library threatened to withdraw from developing the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) due to a dispute over the construction manager? Source: Holmes, Steven A. (May 24, 1978). "City Library Dispute Could Jeopardize Grants". The Atlanta Constitution. pp. 1C, 2C.
  • ALT3: ... that a last-minute change to a referendum proposed that the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) be demolished less than three decades after its completion? Source: Blau, Max (April 11, 2016). "What should happen next with the Atlanta-Fulton Central Library?". Atlanta Magazine.
  • ALT4: ... that funding for the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) was delayed several years, then narrowly approved along racial lines? Source: Gray, Jim; Morrison, David (December 10, 1975). "Voters Approve Library; Reject 3 Other Projects". The Atlanta Constitution. pp. 1A, 6A.
  • ALT5: ... that the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) was Marcel Breuer's final design completed before his death? Source: Kahn, Michael (June 22, 2016). "News Update: Breuer-designed Central Library jeopardized". ARTS ATL.
  • ALT5A: ... that the Atlanta Central Library (pictured), Marcel Breuer's final design completed before his death, was nearly demolished less than three decades after completion? Source: Meier, Allison (March 24, 2016). "As Met Breuer Opens, Two of the Architect's Buildings Face an Uncertain Fate". Hyperallergic.; Kahn, Michael (June 22, 2016). "News Update: Breuer-designed Central Library jeopardized". ARTS ATL.
  • ALT5B: ... that the Atlanta Central Library (pictured), Marcel Breuer's last completed design, was nearly demolished less than three decades after completion? Source: Same as 5A.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Canon EOS
  • Comment: More hook suggestions welcomed

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 769 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC).

Interesting building and story, on plenty of fine sources, offline and restricted sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like ALT1 best, but would skip over the "jail" aspect" and not honor the politician, for example:

• ALT1a: ... that less than three decades after its completion, the Atlanta Central Library (pictured) was threatened to be demolished?
• The image is licensed and almost a must. Without it, we should mention "brutalist". How about saying that it was the architect's last work? He seems more important than that politician ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Gerda Arendt. I've proposed ALT1B (a more concise version of ALT1A), along with ALT5 and ALT5A, for your consideration. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Perhaps put ALTs down here, not with the older timestamp. I'm happy with ALT1B, and happier with ALT5A. I think "before his death" is redundant, or doesn't matter, "last completed design" would suffice for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt, sounds good. I've proposed ALT5B to address your feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, and I like ALT5B best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt, thanks. Are you requesting further review from another reviewer, or is ALT5B good to go? If we need another review, then we should use this symbol . Epicgenius (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  (no, sorry, I was just too tired to preview) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  No problem. Just noting that I tweaked the hooks a bit to clarify what "later" refers to. Epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Commissioning the dead

The 20th century section says that "trustees refused to commission any work from deceased artists" Can someone explain how one would go around commissioning work from dead people? Drmab (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to say that they refused to commission any work from artists who had since died. Alexander Calder drew up plans for an artwork at the library, but the plans were rejected when he died. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2026 (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:Atlanta Central Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 12:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, thank you for your work on this article. I'll review it against the GA criteria and should have initial comments posted within a day. I love libraries so I'm especially looking forward to this one! Best, Zzz plant (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written?

• yes, article is overall quite clear and understandable to a general audience. I will organize minor comments below by sub-section as I go along. note that not all of my prose comments will directly pertain to the GACR and thus will not be used to evaluate promotion. please feel free to push back on anything you don't agree with :-) Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Zzz plant: Thanks for the comments, I appreciate it. I have replied to the ones you've left so far. Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you for being so responsive! The article meets the GA criteria so I will promote it shortly. Excellent job on the article; I'm glad to have learned about this very interesting (and surprisingly controversial!) library. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Lede

• "The Atlanta Central Library is the central location of the Fulton County Library System (FCLS) in Downtown Atlanta, Georgia, United States." would it work to say "main branch" instead of "central location"? just to avoid the "central" repetition Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I have changed it to "main location". It was originally "main branch" but was recently changed. - EG
• "After unsuccessful demolition attempts in the late 2000s and the 2010s..." I feel like "unsuccessful demolition attempts" is a slightly unintuitive turn of phrase. it sounds like they set up the TNT but it didn't go off for some reason. I would adjust the phrasing slightly to convey that the proposals or attempts to authorize demolition were what failed. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Changed to "Following futile efforts to demolish the building in the late 2000s and the 2010s". - EG
• "The building has a concrete facade with an inverted massing..." ymmv, but I think massing is a somewhat niche word that could be replaced with a more generalist term in the lede Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Glossed as "general shape". - EG

History

• suggest adding wikilink to Beaux-Arts style for those who aren't familiar with it Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• "By the 1960s and 1970s, there were myriad issues with the old building..." my initial thought was that this should be "a myriad of issues", but from googling it seems like both are equally valid style options Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Need for a new building

• "A 1965 study by the library expert Joseph L. Wheeler had prompted library officials to consider a new central branch building." I think just a smidge of context about why the study was commissioned may be helpful here if sources allow Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I think that might be more appropriate for Carnegie Library, though in either case I'm not seeing anything in the sources at the moment. - EG

Funding, relocation, and demolition disputes

• "Maynard Jackson, who won the election, pledged to instead secure funding through private means but was unable to find a private financier." suggest removing the second "private" Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• I know the trustees were mentioned in earlier sections, but in this part I really started to wonder- where did the trustees come from / who are they? I think their conflict with the government would be a tad easier to follow if we had just a brief bit of context on how they came to be Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. This was actually part of the Carnegie Library article; these had originally been written as one massive draft, but I decided to split the topics into their own articles before they were published to mainspace. This was a vestige of that massive draft. - EG
• "...largely among racial lines..." this sounds a tad unidiomatic to me, suggest "...largely along racial lines..." Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done - that was a typo. - EG

Construction

• "Despite the dispute between the library board and the city, construction proceeded ahead of schedule, and Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and Jenkins-Fleming were hired as the interior design consultants." I would split this sentence into two separate ones to avoid stacked "and"s - these thoughts also don't seem inherently connected Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• "The two additional floors were intended to accommodate the branch's future needs, as it would have been disruptive to construct the two floors after the building's completion." I might just be missing context from the ProQuest sources, but I don't think that last part of the sentence really adds a lot. the key point seems that they added the two floors to allow for future expansion Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The point was that they decided to future-proof the building by installing the floors during the original construction, rather than afterward. I welcome any way to make this more clear. - EG
• "The new Central Library included an electronic card catalog system to replace the old building's physical cards, as well as a minicomputer system for readers and another system to detect whether patrons had overdue books." just highlighting as a very cool detail! I wouldn't have guessed that computers would have been adopted for tasks like this by the late 70s Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• the prospective sculpture mini-narrative feels unfinished to me, like the plan ultimately went nowhere. Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I have moved the art story below, since, as you mentioned, this actually continued on after the building opened. Epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

20th century

• this subsection title seems a bit odd to me, since in the narrative we've been in the 20th century for quite a while now. would suggest something like "opening and early years" Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• ah okay, here's the rest of the art story. I think this should be kept together in one place, even if it comes at the expense of following an exact chronological order. the set-up in the previous subsection just feels like it's dropped very abruptly before being picked back up again Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• "Among these projects were a redesign of the plaza (which had become a frequent spot for loitering)," I feel like if you include the aside about loitering, it sort of invites the need for a clearer explanation of how the redesign was going to address that Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I clarified that the design was to reduce loitering. - EG
• "The African-American collection and some items were relocated to the Auburn Avenue Library..." "some items" feels almost distractingly vague. were they items from the collection? or just unrelated knickknacks. if the latter, maybe not even worth mentioning Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It was the latter; I've removed it. - EG
• "The theater was closed during the mid-1990s after water from a leaking concrete planter caused parts of the ceiling to collapse." yikes! this library has every possible type of drama. do the sources say if anyone was hurt and/or did it happen while the library was open? Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so, though not specifically when the theater was being used. In fact, I couldn't find a source on when exactly the ceiling collapsed, which makes me think it was more of a gradual deterioration than a sudden event. - EG
• "Although the restaurant was busy and successful during the building's early years, the FCLS board terminated the restaurant's lease in 1998 in an unsuccessful attempt to lease the space to a higher-paying tenant." I don't think I can access this source, but I just want to double check - did they directly admit that was their motive? it just seems very, er, straightforward for a board to confess something like that. Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The source says, "Meanwhile, the library's restaurant—asked to vacate in 1998 by the board, which wanted something with lower prices but never found a tenant—should reopen as a coffee bar this fall." I don't think the board explicitly told the restaurant this, but according to Library Journal, that was their motive. - EG
• "...at the time, it had never undergone a major renovation." feels a bit tacked on to me. I think partly because, given the quite detailed history provided here, it'd be surprising if a major renovation had been done but not mentioned by this point. Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

2000–2007: Initial renovation

• I think the organization of the first paragraph could be improved, the transitions just feel a little jumpy. We go from new computer centers to the library is not doing that well to the library is being sued for discrimination against white librarians, and then back again to the library not doing that well (as well as a teaser for a future renovation that hasn't yet been formally introduced) Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've moved the renovation detail to elsewhere in the paragraph. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

2008–2016: Demolition plans

• "By 2010, there were plans to reopen the basement's abandoned restaurant space as a coffee bar." did this plan go anywhere? if not I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned, it seems like this library - for better or worse - has had lots of unrealized plans, and this one seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Homeless people frequently congregated at the building by the early 2010s, prompting other patrons to avoid it." would qualify like "some other patrons", since presumably not everyone avoided it Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Even so, members of the public signed petitions and left public comments advocating for preservation." "Even so" feels just a tad bit editorial, and also implies contradiction - from my reading these members of the public do want the library's problems to be improved/addressed. they just don't want it to be demolished Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  (EG here) I have removed the first, as that plan didn't go anywhere. For the second and third, I have made the suggested changes. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

2016–present: Renovation and reopening

• "The project retained about 95% of the original design." how is this sort of thing quantified? Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "With the work largely complete by early 2021, the building ultimately reopened on October 5." would simplify slightly to "With the work largely complete by early 2021, it reopened on October 5." Zzz plant (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have fixed both. For the first point I was missing a word (design details). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Description

• part of me thinks the basic specs about where this library is located should be put before the history. it just feels like we're taking a massive step back, from here is this very fascinating in-depth history to here's the physical street address Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I did consider that. Compared with other buildings, this one hasn't undergone so many changes that it still makes sense if the history section is placed first (something that might not be true for, say, something like Federal Hall). I may move the sections later. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• along a somewhat similar line, the second para here feels like it doesn't quite belong with the first- now the reader is learning more about the architect's backstory and legacy. I think I would suggest making a "location" subsection, and then an architecture subsection to follow the history one Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  You know what, yeah, that makes sense. I often put a "Site" section before the "History" section in many articles I expand; this makes more sense. I think we should go with that instead. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Exterior

• "John Poros, one of Breuer's biographers, wrote that "there is no sense of assemblage here", in that the building appeared to be carved out of a single block of concrete rather than being cobbled together from several structures." the quote here feels a bit awkward because it results in tense-mixing, I think I would suggest paraphrasing or you could change the tense with brackets Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "The 2021 renovation added more windows, since the poorly-lit interiors originally drove away potential patrons." I don't doubt this to be true, but I feel like this should be qualified or attributed rather than said definitively in wikivoice Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "... abutting the basement on Fairlie Street to the northwest. The Fairlie Street facade also contains loading docks and abuts a maintenance space." "abut" is an uncommon enough word that I would try to avoid using it twice in close proximity Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • All done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Interior

• "The superstructure consists of a steel frame and concrete slabs..." maybe this is my architectural ignorance speaking, but this seems more like info about the exterior than the interior? Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • This is about the internal frame; the steelwork isn't visible from outside, and there are also concrete slabs inside. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• "An electronic computer system could close off parts of the library in case of an emergency." I would say "can" unless the system isn't operational any more ? Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Layout and circulation features

• the subsection title isn't super clear to me, specifically "circulation features" - I initially assumed we were talking about book circulation but having read the whole thing now I'm wondering if it's about air flow Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's neither, but I can see how this can be confusing (it refers to vertical traffic circulation). I've trimmed the title. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• "There is a bank of elevators on the wall of the main lobby, which do not serve the top floor." hm, is this saying that the top floor isn't accessible by elevator? Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Not quite - it's just this particular bank that doesn't reach the top floor. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• "The interior decorations were mostly colorless, with decorations, such as earth-toned floors, that gave a warm ambiance." I would rephrase slightly to avoid repeating decorations and clarify that it was their intent to give a warm ambience (although it seems like some people disagreed with the result), something like "The interior decorations were mostly colorless, with features such as earth-toned floors designed to offer a warm ambiance." Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Rooms

• I don't remember seeing Luftwerk mentioned, maybe could do with a first name here Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Luftwerk is an art collective. I've fixed it. - EG
• may be unavoidable, but this section has a surprising amount of past tense. I would sort of expect this section to focus on the current state of what the rooms are, and for the important historical facts to be discussed more so in history Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I changed the tenses. Epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Collection

• I mentioned in image review, but the exterior image doesn't seem super relevant here Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "There were collections of artworks, cassettes, films, and equipment, which patrons were allowed to rent or borrow." is there a difference between renting and borrowing? Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Nope. I removed it. - EG
• the special collection info (what they have as well as their general operations) seems a bit thin, at least in comparison to the rest of the article. if sources allow, I think this could benefit from a tad bit of expansion. like, do they have any notable rare books? can the general public access the genealogy department and the old city directories? is there a display/exhibit associated with the Margaret Mitchell collection? what does "library system's archives" mean in a practical sense- the history of who has borrowed books etc.? Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the sources themselves are a bit thin on this - although the collections are notable, there aren't really any objects that stand out (unlike the central libraries in places like NYC or Boston). I couldn't even find information on what the collection's current size is, let alone details about the collection. I've clarified some things, nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Reception and media coverage

• this section is generally good, but I do think it's a tad quote-heavy overall in places where it doesn't necessarily need to be. I will flag a few that most stood out to me:
• "...in that it did not strictly follow the philosophy that form follows function, and that it was yet "almost modernistically baroque"." - would recommend getting swapping the first "follow" with a synonym, maybe "keep to" or "observe"? also- I don't really quite know what "it was yet "almost modernistically baroque" conveys Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I clarified that it was described as a modern version of Baroque architecture. - EG
• "Retrospectively, although the building's design was well-received in the architectural community, it did not age well..." this strikes me as a bit informal, and also not quite saying (what I think is) the main point - which is that the general public didn't like it. I feel like the lack of color and the windows wasn't necessarily a reflection of the building aging poorly, it was more so that the library didn't provide the environment (even historically) that they expected or wanted Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "The museum wrote that the Central Library, New York City's Begrisch Hall, Rotterdam's De Bijenkorf store, and the Whitney building were "remarkable for the pregnancy and the unity of their volumes"." - this feels like an interesting quote, but I don't know if I quite understand what "pregnancy" is doing here Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Me neither. I've rephrased. - EG
• "When the Central Library's demolition was proposed, County Commissioner Robb Pitts claimed that the Breuer building was "dark, it's not friendly, it's not inviting"..." I don't think you need the exact quote here, you can paraphrase his general thoughts like you do with the jail comparison Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "local architect Bobbie Unger said that, despite the building's formidable appearance, "we don't have anything like that here in Atlanta. It should be valued."" would recommend paraphrasing rather than quoting here to convey the gist of what he's saying. his specific word choice isn't adding a lot here imo Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Cynthia Rogers of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that the planned demolition was an example of the "lessons of waste"..." sorry to be a broken record, but this is another spot where I feels intuitively like this is perhaps an impactful quote, but I'm not impacted because I don't really get what she's getting at. like, it's not even clear to me whether she thinks the effort to demolish it is bad or the building itself is bad (and maybe by extension, should be demolished?) Zzz plant (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • In response to all of these, I have changed or paraphrased the quotes. For Rogers specifically, I reread the source and it seems she was trying to get something else across, so I've revised the text to indicate what she really did intend to say. Epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research?

Source spot check

in-line ref #s as of this revision

• [2]: "The original central building of the Fulton County Library System (FCLS; originally the Atlanta Public Library, or APL) was the Carnegie Library, funded with money from industrialist Andrew Carnegie." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [46][47]: "The bond issue, which was delayed until August 1976, made the city the primary financier of the new building." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [71]: "The library board had hired the two firms in exchange for getting the city government's approval to select a construction manager and add two more floors." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [73]: "Yates, who oversaw even the most minute aspects of the building's construction, said that "this building is virtually hand-crafted in every respect"..." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [115]: "In 2001, the FCLS announced plans to renovate the building for $3 million, at which point the Central Library had significantly lower patronage and circulation than the main libraries of similarly-sized American cities." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [165]: "Exterior work began in mid-2019." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [171]: "...[T]he building received a LEED Gold green building certification from the U.S. Green Building Council." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [186]: "Due to the site's slope, there are entrances at both the basement and first stories." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [87]: "Colorful decorations were added in the 2000s renovation." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [84]: "Originally, the fifth floor displayed a bust salvaged from the old library, depicting Andrew Carnegie." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [202]: "The Hattie Wilson High Genealogical Collection contains documents relating to family histories in the Southern United States, particularly Georgia." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• [209]: "When the library bond issue was approved in 1975, The Atlanta Constitution wrote that the design resembled "an oversized cinderblock with apertures"." Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Source reliability

• yes, you have a very healthy mix here of academic scholarship about the library, articles published in reputable newspapers, and architectural trade journals for the more nitty-gritty technical details. nothing looks out of place, and sources are used appropriately in context for the types of claims they are supporting. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyright

• EW quite low at 8.3%, and even that is just a (properly attributed) quote Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• I checked the sources I spot-checked for close-paraphrasing and didn't see anything even slightly concerning. you've done a good job conveying the gist of the sources without relying on their particular phrasing - often by cutting details that aren't strictly needed in summary style. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage?

• yes, I find this to be a very well-researched entry about a (surprisingly controversial) library. the history gets more weight than the library's function/collections - but I think that's unavoidable given the sourcing. and libraries don't tend to get a ton of press/scholarship covering their standard, expected library activities. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• article uses a summary style, in my spot check I noticed several places where you could have added more detail but didn't. healthy restraint and focus on the key points Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Stable?

• yes, no signs of edit warring in history or on talk page. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Illustrated?

• yes, see below:

File:Atlanta Central Library, ATL.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0 + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Carnegie Library of Atlanta.tif - PD + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Atlanta-Fulton Central Library (8216348716).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0 + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Walkin ATL 024.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0 + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Atlanta Central Library 2.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0 + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Atlanta Central Library Interior.jpg CC0 + relevant Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Atlanta Central Library.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.5, this is the only one that doesn't seem especially relevant to me, as a standard shot of the library entrance doesn't seem to intuitively illustrate discussion about what the library has in its collection. it also feels a bit redundant to the other exterior images, but I won't object if you want to keep it. Zzz plant (talk) 16:01, 13 February 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.