Talk:James B. Hunt Jr. Library

Work in Progress

We're working on this page for the Hunt Library, please bear with us! --Katerwaul (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Information

Here is the hunt library page with facts http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/huntlibrary/facts --Youngpenn (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

http://wilsontimes.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1584365&CategoryID=65496&ListSubAlbums=0

http://fastestpedestrian.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/james-b-hunt-jr-library/ ...a couple of outside sources Kslinker5493 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about these sources, but I figured I would post them anyway! http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/james-b-hunt-to-break-ground-friday http://www.wral.com/news/education/image_gallery/11892923/ http://www.dbl.gatech.edu/sites/www.dbl.gatech.edu/files/Sijie-Eric.pdf http://blog.seattlepi.com/bookpatrol/2013/01/08/the-bookbot-invades-the-library/

http://sustainability.ncsu.edu/james-b-hunt-jr-library

--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

info about materials used in building it http://www.blairconcrete.com/ncsu-james-b-hunt-jr-library/--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of the Library

How "high quality" do you want the pictures of the library to be? I can take pictures on my iPhone but I don't know if anyone is worried about the picture quality. I have class every Tuesday and Thursday on Centennial in EB1 and EB2 which is fairly close by so I could take pictures of the building from the outside (as well as inside, I guess, but I've never been inside so I know I will get lost) --MangoDango (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be filming a project with a DSLR over the weekend, and will be using Hunt as a shooting location. I can get some shots of the exterior and interior if y'all want. --Seannator (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Phone pictures would be better than no pictures, but the quality on those would probably be too low. Seannator, video or photo shots? Sounds like a good plan though.--Jeflicki (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What's DSLR? Out of idle curiosity...Luna002 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The DSLR can shoot both film and photos, but for this page I could just grab some shots around the library. I can get a decent exterior shot, and random stuff inside like the technology offered and assorted architectural nuances. --Seannator (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can get images of at least 3 Mpx would be good. If you're aiming for high quality, can have a look first to some of the best library images we have so far. --ELEKHH^T 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was planning on taking pictures this weekend, but obviously the weather was pretty bad. I will still go and snap some shots of the exterior as well as any other aspects of the architecture that might be of intetest. --Seannator (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are any pictures coming tonight or do we need to find some without copyright?--Jeflicki (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got some pictures. I'll upload them to an online album and y'all can pick the ones you want. --Seannator (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty here y'all go. I've uploaded a selection of pictures. Pick and choose what you will. --Seannator (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

News & Observer Article on Library

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/18/2553438/ncsus-hyper-modern-new-james-b.html --Jeflicki (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

here is an editorial on it from the N&O....not sure if we can use that or not?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/23/2560158/check-out-the-james-b-hunt-jr.html

--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Links

I will work on getting the links involved with this page together, among other edits/adding info, etc.--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphan

So I noticed we have a new thing up at the top about this article being an Orphan, do we need to address this? One thing we could do would be to update this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Campus_of_North_Carolina_State_University and link the library. The library is still under the "Buildings under construction" section, maybe we can move it to "Points of interest" and link it here? But I don't know if this is beyond the scope of what we are suppose to do --MangoDango (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Found another link that could be worthy of updating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._H._Hill_Library#Study_Areas --MangoDango (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We could go into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University page and put a little info about the new library under the Library section and a link to this library page in it?--Tabbboooo (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

and, we could put a link to this page under the Centennial Campus section of that same article as well.--Tabbboooo (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/huntlibrary/sustainability--Jastout (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Detailed Floor Layout

Maybe we could ask the university if we could use this photo. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/huntlibrary/explorespacesJastout (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good University Library Wikipedia Articles

It's actually kind of hard to find a university library Wikipedia article designated good, but I do see that the UCLA William Andrews Clark Memorial Library article is "good." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodmont (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that one is only marked as "start" class. A relatively recent Good Article is the Phillips Exeter Academy Library. Other good quality library articles you can have a look at are listed here. --ELEKHH^T 01:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Links From Other Articles

There is a link from D. H. Hill Library article and I added another on the Cent. Campus article. Do we need any other ones?--Jeflicki (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Common Grounds Café section?

Does it need to be its own section? We could rename this to "amenities" or "tenants," but honestly I think we could summarize the food options in one-to-two sentences and stick that in the general information section or even in the introduction. --Katerwaul (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the only place to eat or "amenity" available at the library. It does make more sense to add a whole different section but I'm not sure if there are other options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.170.233 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

Much of this articles is a very close paraphrase of the library's web site. (Although it is sometimes difficult to present purely routine factual material in a significantly different way, , the wording here is too highly parallel.)

You must avoid Close paraphrase. I noticed in particular the sections on environment, and the bookbot, but other parts re also problematic. When using a source it is necessary to change not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.

I understand that this article is part of a class project, Please ask the instructor to review this matter, since the instructor is expected to supervise the academic integrity of the course's work. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG, since this was a class project (which ended right about the time of this comment), this wasn't brought to our instructor's attention. Pity, too, since students were fully aware of Wikipedia's standards re: paraphrasing. We trusted each other probably too much to follow the rules. I'll go ahead and see what I can do to work through those sections you mentioned to bring a more original voice to the article and maintain its integrity. Thanks. 11:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Luna002 (talk)

Please update on this here on the talk page, as it could result in this article being a quickfail at WP:GAN for this reason. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite and to-do/requests

This is somewhat of a continuation of the above section regarding the GAN.

I just finished some revisions. Happy to give rationale for any if there are objections, of course, and I'm sure there are still many areas to be improved upon. In particular:

1. I wonder if the several lines about awards received makes the article sound too promotional.
2. I didn't change the Game Lab specs. Not sure what to do with it. This is basically taken directly from the website, but given that it's specs I can't imagine close paraphrasing is an issue. Regardless, is it helpful? Can it be summarized?

--Rhododendrites (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

pre-GA

1. I have doubts about the entire environment section --everything is really pretty standard. A national award for environmental performance is meaningful, one from the City of Raleigh is not. "additional affordances" have not yet been implemented, & the Univ has "expressed an intention" to seek LEED silver--a not particularly distinguished level.

2. There surely must be references in librarianship sources. An ALA award should not be sourced only from from the AIA web site. The automated book stack must surely have more discussion than local newspapers and 2 sentences in the Boston Globe. Most of the references remain press releases, and they mostly duplicate each other. The awards are important in showing notability. I wouldn't remove them, except for the one s above.

3.The way to remove paraphrase from the game lab section is to remove the list of standard equipment. That it has a 20 ft video wall with (I think, but from the sources I am not sure) multi-player capacity is significant; than it has a Samsung blu-ray player is not.

4, the "book-bot" was presumably made by a particular manufacturer and has been documented in the technical literature. The article claims not uniqueness, but uniqueness only with North Carolina. As far as I know, most automated book delivery machines are, unlike this one, in non-oublic area, and the one here, seems to have an exceptional degree of public capability. This is interesting, and should be documented.

5. It is not clear to someone not from NCSU just where on campus this library is and what departments it serves. I did find the information, but it took a while. It's hidden within the article on Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University, from which it can be determined--and not from the lede, which gives the number of units but not what they are--that it comprises the Engineering departments, a few others, and the associated university and corporate research centers. This is very relevant to the nature of the library and the functional acceptability to the users.

In summary, it's a very important library, worth an extensive article, but it's way premature to think about GA. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

6. The term Hunt Library is being used in two senses in the article: for the building, and for the library unit housed in the building. It is in either case not accurate to say that "Hunt Library is part of the Triangle Research Libraries Network ". It is part of the NCSU library system, which is part of the Triangle network. The term Hunt Library is being used in two senses in the article: for the building, and for the library unit housed in the building.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James B. Hunt Jr. Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Examples of prose/MoS issues below checklist

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I haven't checked all citations for verifiability, but from what I did see the article looks pretty well-referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is quite short, and there is little information on the history and demand for the library. I think a second round of research and information-digging for expansion is needed. Conversely, the Game Lab section goes into unnecessary jargon and detail - people interested in the specs can look them up, but for most readers they are distracting and intimidating.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There seem to be significant issues raised on the talk page. I wholeheartedly agree with DGG's comments about the readiness and development of the article. I haven't yet looked into the close paraphrasing, but this is a copyright issue and needs to be remedied pretty smartly (if not already attended to).

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   While images are not a requirement for GA, I think a photograph of the BookBot would be awesome to see included!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is a great foundation here, but I think it needs a decent push to meet the GA criteria. The only library GA I could find is Harold B. Lee Library, but take a look at other articles in the education section—and perhaps some FAs—for inspiration. I hope to see this article back at GAN in the future. Good luck. Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have done a bit of copy-editing on the article. Feel free to undo anything.
• The lead doesn't adequately summarise the article, and contains information no present in the body. See MOS:LEAD for more.
• "When the project's budget was cut by $11 million in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-08, the BookBot was one of several innovations to emerge, enabling architects to design a smaller building without sacrificing seating." - I know you have a whole subsection dedicated to the BookBot, but I think a few words outlining what the BookBot actually is.
• The first two sections (Architecture and Design and Sustainability) feel quite choppy to read. I think they would work better as one section
• "Compared to storing books on traditional shelves, the delivery system can store the same amount of books while only using 1/9 the size of that." - poor prose, please try to rewrite

Adabow (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)