Talk:Ainsworth Rand Spofford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Ainsworth Rand Spofford has been listed as one of the History 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 28, 2026. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that two library clerks stole George Washington's diary from Ainsworth Rand Spofford's desk? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed deletion of "Posthumous reception" section
I added a citation around the mention of the 1870 copyright act and its relationship to Spofford's tenure at the Library. It seems that the section "Posthumous Recognition" is not appropriately titled. This section at present is about work identifying Spofford's gravestone and its inscription. This is posthumous, but in most cases these sections tend to deal with the way that an individual's work or contributions have been received or shaped subsequent action. More appropriate here seems to be how Spofford's activities shaped the Library and/or librarianship or the library's collections.
Changed article status & importance level
Since the Librarian of Congress is a key leader and an appointee of the US president, I have moved this article to "Top" importance for the Library of Congress wikipedia project, since it would be a critical entry for any reference on the institution. Morskyjezek (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Changed to C-class in biography project, US, and Lib of Congress. Morskyjezek (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Untitled
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 Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- ... that two library clerks stole George Washington's diary from Ainsworth Rand Spofford's desk?
- Source: As their business continued, in early January 1897, Turner and McElhone informed William Benjamin that they could supply him with George Washington's diary kept during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To obtain this item the thieves not only had to break into Spofford's office, but a locked drawer in his desk as wellPurcell, Aaron D. (1999). "Abstractions of Justice: The Library of Congress's Great Manuscripts Robbery, 1896–1897". The American Archivist. 62 (2) JSTOR 40294126. pp. 328–330
Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC).
- I'll review this shortly... DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Article is new enough (expanded April 4, nominated April 7) and long enough (kudos on 5-6x expanding an already-1000 word article). Sourcing looks to be top-notch. Earwig didn't have much to go by but only returned proper nouns, and a spot check of a few sources on JSTOR showed no cause for copyvio concern. QPQ done. The hook is reliably sourced, appears in the article, and is interesting (those were some audacious thieves).
- @Generalissima: well done on the article, and good luck with the GA nom; I kind of wish I'd reviewed that instead of this, but alas. This is good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- DrOrinScrivello Thank you! You're more than welcome to review the GA nom if you want to, btw - it's reviewing the DYK from a GA nom you reviewed that's messy, but the other way around is okay. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, good to know, I'd assumed that rule went both directions. If it's still available when I have some free time next week, I just might. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Text missing?
I think there’s some missing text in the paragraph beginning “In an October 1869 address to the American Social Science Association…” was it Spofford who made the address?
Later on in the same paragraph, there’s “that 1869”. Should it be either “that year” or “in 1869”?
I think the next sentence should read: “Spofford extended the library’s hours, …” ? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Corrected this. Thank you very much for catching it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- You’re welcome. I enjoyed reading the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Possible clarification
@Generalissima, just wanted to bring to your attention that someone flagged this statement as possibly needing clarification. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Clarified this - thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
"read secular books in secret from his father"
It says that as a young boy being tutored at home, Spofford read secular books in secret from his father
. It seems to me that there must be a better way to say this; though the context seems to support the interpretation that his father (a 19th-century Presbyterian minister) disapproved of secular reading material, the phrasing in this sentence is ambiguous enough to support the opposite - that his father had more progressive opinions than some other clergy and secretly gave him the books, and it was others who might disapprove.
I don't want to make things complicated at all, I just want to prevent unnecessary head-scratching by readers. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:44, 28 April 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:Ainsworth Rand Spofford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 16:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, it took me a little longer than I initially suggested, but I think I'm finally going to take this review on. I'll begin the prose review later today or tomorrow. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Prose review
This is a very well-written article. I've made a light and hopefully uncontroversial copyedit pass, but please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I have only a handful of fairly minor comments on the rest of the prose; some may only be suggestions and not necessary to pass the review, and I'll try to mention when that's the case.
Infobox and lead
- First, to address two talk page comments: I agree that the infobox should lose the periods in the few instances of U.S. (or add them elsewhere, but it's probably easier to edit the infobox). Next, while I wasn't as tripped up by read secular books in secret from his father as the one editor, I can see how the current construction could be confusing and might should be rephrased.
- Fixed.-G
- he served as a war correspondent in Washington, D.C., in July covering and fleeing the Battle of Bull Run Suggest nixing "in July"
- Fixed.-G
Early life and career
- His father transferred between various other congregations during Spofford's youth; he spent much of his childhood at his father's parish "His father" is the subject of the first clause, which leads the reader to assume the "he" that begins the second is also the father. Recommend modifying the pronouns or adding an "Ainsworth" in there.
- Fixed.-G
Librarian of Congress
- in exchange for publications and seeds offered by the United States delegation in Beijing I'm intrigued by the sudden addition of seeds into a narrative about books, is there any additional context on these?
- Sadly no more info.-G
- predicting that the library would hold around 2.5 million books by 1975 I'm of the opinion that your footnote here is interesting enough to be included in the prose as a parenthetical, but I'll leave it up to you.
- Eh, I think it'd be a bit distracting and chronologically confusing otherwise.-G
- calling on Congress to act quickly to avoid future chaos Reading the quotebox shows "chaos" to be a direct quote, and with it being slightly editorializing I'd suggest putting it in quotes in the prose.
- Fixed.-G
- At the founding meeting of the American Library Association (ALA) in 1867 Believe this should be 1876
- Fixed.-G
- the Joint Committee voted to preserve the Librarian of Congress's oversight of staffing matters I'd like some clarification here – the use of "preserve" seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph's assertion that the Librarian actually had little oversight. Was there much of a change after the vote?
- Fixed.-G
- The sentence that begins with An article in the association's Library Journal is long and difficult to parse – recommend splitting it after the quote.
- Fixed.-G
- Young suspected that he was chosen for the position Should this be "suspected that he had been chosen", or possibly "suspected that he was to be chosen"? The current iteration reads a little off to me.
- Fixed.-G
- Chief Assistant Librarian is capitalized here but lowercase a couple of times in the following section. MOS:JOB befuddles me on occasion, but I think lowercase is probably appropriate here.
- Fixed.-G
Think that's it for the prose. Again, nice work on this. It'll probably be tomorrow before I can get to the source review. @Generalissima: throwing you a ping here since I haven't yet, but no hurry – just keeping you abreast of my progress. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
All of the above changes look good. On to the source review. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Source review
Sourcing in general is good. I'll be spot checking ref #s 3, 16, 39, 45, 50, 67, 70, and 80 as of this revision.
- 3. (a)
(b) (c) - 16.
- 39. (a) (b)
No mention of Winsor in this source - 45. (a) (b)
- 50. (a) (b) (c) (d)
- 67.
- 70.
- 80.
Mostly clean spot check, just probably have the wrong source cited at 39b. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Image review and misc criteria
- All images are relevant, suitably captioned, and properly tagged with PD licenses. ALT text is not a GA requirement but thank you for including it (though it is missing on the 1875 rendering of the proposed library building, if you feel like adding it).
- Article is stable and written from an NPOV. It is broad in its coverage without going into unnecessary detail. Running an Earwig report would be pointless, but I encountered no CLOP concerns during my source review.
@Generalissima: just the one item in the source review to take a look at – once that's taken care of I think we'll be good to go here. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- @DrOrinScrivello: Sorry about the delay; forgot to cite Cole 1972a again. Should be good now! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- No worries at all. The above fix looks good, and with that, I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria and am happy to pass. Congratulations to Generalissima and all others who have worked on it! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)