Talk:Rauner Special Collections Library

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead: could consider mentioning when the Hopkins Center for the Arts was opened
• Link Library stack?
• Planning and construction of Webster Hall: when and why did they name it Webster Hall?
• Could be nice to add {{inflation}} (with {{inflation/fn}} for the references) to compare the dollar figures with modern money
• Early use as campus auditorium: it would be nice (but optional) to have a short word or two of introduction for the various people who performed at the Hall so people are not forced to click. George Wallace for instance could be "the Alabama governor George Wallace" or similar.
• Special Collections before Rauner: Then Chief of Special Collections Walter Wright good that you introduce who he was, but the "then" is unnecessary here.
• Conversion planning and construction: what is "student programming"? It looks a bit like learning to code...

More soon! —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the initial comments. I've addressed most of them. I've added inflation calculations for some of the more significant dollar figures, and I've added short definitions for the individuals listed in the campus auditorium section. George Wallace technically wasn't the governor of Alabama at the exact date of his address at the Hall (he was between his terms). Should I still introduce him as Alabama governor? Also, I define student programming later on in the same paragraph as "including shows, concerts, and dance classes." Would you still like me to just delete the initial use of the term so that the first sentence reads as "The renovation was met with opposition from some student groups" and then define the term in the following sentences? VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh and as for the naming of the hall, I haven't been able to find any sources explaining when or why it was named Webster Hall. I was able to add a cited statement directly stating that the Hall was named after Daniel Webster. I don't have any more information beyond what is already in the article, which includes the fact that the Hall broke ground during a celebration of the centennial of Webster's graduation from Dartmouth. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For the student programming, I think it would be best to explain what student programming is before you call it that (if you even need to). As you suggested, it would work to just say "the renovation was opposed by students. The hall had been used as a venue for student activities including... and the renovation meant this would not be possible". —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is "the school" the same as "Dartmouth College"? (In British parlance, a "school" is usually an academic department, as in "School of Physics and Astronomy"). This is probably fine, but if there is no difference between "the college" and "the school", you could stick to the first one for clarity.
• The story about getting bids from three library movers is a bit overly detailed if you ask me. It is normal for a library with special collections to use specialist movers and it is normal for businesses to get more than one quote.
• Operations as Rauner Library: "The library staff had finished moving the collections on time" we were just told that they used a specialised company?
• "it had intended to digitize the papers of Dartmouth co-founder Samson Occom" the suspense is killing me. Do you know why they decided not to do it, as you imply?
• Design: maybe "the New York architect Charles A. Rich"?
• I would put "Corinthian" in upper case
• Link Greek cross? Or better, explain? An actual floor plan would be awesome.
• Other collections: Per MOS:NOFORCELINK (note: not among the GA criteria) it is always good to briefly say who these people are. For example, a "known as Dr Seuss" would be nice.
• "had also housed" don't think the past perfect is needed here

First read through done. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, but I will see what source checking brings. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1360402371.

• 2 and 3 and 7 and 23 are from the same journal, but you cite one of them (3) as a web page.
• 2a: source has "He had a master plan ready within two months of Tucker's election on 24 February 1893" which I read as the master plan being presented in April (or possibly March), not in February?
• 2d: what does source 2 contribute here?
• 3f: yes
• 3g: perhaps a bit close but OK
• 4: looks OK
• 7a: OK
• 11: ok.
• 23a: yes. You might also consider using the source's "the size of the collections that are serviced through the Treasure Room have increased more than a hundredfold in the last seventy years" to give context to the "critical space issues" you mention a bit later.
• 30a: ok.
• 37: yes, although the article makes it sound like this was financed by Dartmouth, not by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
• 47: source is dead and very self-published.

Overall I am satisfied with the spot check. There is one general issue though: the vast majority of the sources are Dartmouth College writing about itself in some shape or form (even the criticism is from Dartmouth students). It would be good to have a little bit of external perspective as well, if it exists. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

• Prose: No major complaints, some smaller issues see above.
• MoS compliance: looks ok. "former Illinois governor Bruce Rauner" is a MOS:SOB but not a GA showstopper.
• Source formatting passes GA, but could be more consistent. Sources are reliable, but not very independent from Dartmouth. Just the source 47 from the spot check should be archived or replaced.
• No OR or copyvio detected.
• Article scope is fine, overly detailed bits seem to have been removed.
• Image licenses look good. Captions work. ALT text would be nice, but is optional.

Almost there I think. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments have been addressed. I've altered the wording for sources 2a and 37 and have dropped sources 2d and 47. I couldn't find anything else directly stating that the galleries were named after the Class of 1965 because of a donation, but I was able to use a floor plan to cite the statement that the galleries are located on the mezzanine level. I also cited a page from the Dartmouth Libraries website to give some additional info on the exhibits featured in the Class of 1965 Galleries. I used source 23 as requested and have reformatted source 3. All prose comments have been addressed. I've linked Greek cross but haven't been able to find anything seemingly reliable that actually explains how the Greek cross is applied architecturally, nor have I found any floor plans that wouldn't be copyrighted. I can also just drop the mention of the Greek cross if that's preferred. I am still searching for additional external commentary/sources, but not much has turned up so far. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Good changes overall. None of my remaining concerns are showstoppers for GA so I will pass this now. —Kusma (talk) 21:23, 23 June 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