Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Dewey Decimal Classification"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Ohconfucius (image) |
imported>Nemo bis (one problem) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] The topic is very notable. The hook is of great interest (it's "obvious" but I admit I never looked at it that way), is referenced in a recently added paragraph with a reliable source published by a [[The Scarecrow Press|notable publisher]]. I've only skimmed the rest of the article, I rely on the reviewers who agreed to its good article status. However, even if we consider the whole period in which the article was brought to GA status [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Decimal_Classification&diff=595235750&oldid=581821655], in no way we can consider the text to have grown fivefold. I would [[WP:IAR|IAR]] this requirement given the very good standing with regard to the others and considering that the hook is a recently introduced information making an otherwise tough/"boring" article more accessible/palatable, but I refrain to do so given my bias towards librarian topics. I'll let someone else decide. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:53, 15 February 2014
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dewey Decimal Classification
- ... that Dewey Decimal Classification (inventor pictured) paved the way for open-shelf access for library patrons?
- ALT1:... that before Dewey Decimal Classification (inventor pictured), books in most libraries were arranged first by height and then by order of acquisition?
- Reviewed: Exempt (Third party nom)
Improved to Good Article status by SPat (talk). Nominated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
- 16px The topic is very notable. The hook is of great interest (it's "obvious" but I admit I never looked at it that way), is referenced in a recently added paragraph with a reliable source published by a notable publisher. I've only skimmed the rest of the article, I rely on the reviewers who agreed to its good article status. However, even if we consider the whole period in which the article was brought to GA status [1], in no way we can consider the text to have grown fivefold. I would IAR this requirement given the very good standing with regard to the others and considering that the hook is a recently introduced information making an otherwise tough/"boring" article more accessible/palatable, but I refrain to do so given my bias towards librarian topics. I'll let someone else decide. --Nemo 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)