Jump to content

Talk:The Valley Library

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Valley Library has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Oregon State University's first standalone library (current library pictured) was not opened until 1918 even though the school was established in 1868?

Expansion

[edit]

Can easily be expanded with some history, such as was previously the Kerr Library (anyone with old pics with the ugly metal screens), and expanded to the current size from 1995ish-1998ish, plus obviuosly the original construction time/costs etc. Aboutmovies 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Valley Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RHM22 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No DAB links, external links look fine.

GA review (see here for criteria)

I would like to review your article. I learned quite a bit from reading it.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article is short, but it seems to cover the topic thoroughly.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The facts seem to check out.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article seems thorough to me.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The images all seem to be tagged correctly.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Nice work!-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Special Collections and Archives

[edit]

These two have merged. They will both have the same service point by Fall 2012, so sometime after then, the article should list them together as the same entity. Might need some reworking of sources to make it flow well though.ibleedorange14 22:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibleedorange14 (talkcontribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Valley Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]