Talk:Imperial War Museum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

List

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is decent enough, though tends to be dry and factual rather than informative; there is no voice and little awareness of a reader, as such it can be rather boring and attention drifts in the listing of facts. Some sections, such as the lead, are not clear, and don't give an adequate overview of the museum or it's history. Some paragraphs are short, and tease rather than provide information: "In September 1992 the museum was the target of a Provisional Irish Republican Army attack against London tourist attractions. Two incendiary devices were found and caused minor damage." The devices were found and caused damage? Suggest reading through the article (it sometimes helps to have a reader in mind - a friend or relative) to pick out areas where it is not clear. Also with a view to presenting the information in a way that is interesting rather than merely factual. And to ensure that sentences flow logically - these don't: "A number of ship models were damaged by the blast and a Short Seaplane, which had flown at the Battle of Jutland, was destroyed. In October 1945 the museum mounted a temporary exhibition, its first since the end of the war, which showcased technologies developed by the Petroleum Warfare Department." The second sentence has nothing to do with the first. As regards MoS: the lead is not adequate - see WP:Lead; there are too many images - see MOS:IMAGES.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   It appears to be factually accurate with a good range of sources, but these have not yet been checked.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It's worth taking a look at National Gallery (London) for aspects of coverage. I'd like some more details about the building and the layout, and rather less on the background history of HMS Belfast - the ship has only been under the care of the museum since 1978, so the background details of the trust and sailing under Tower Bridge, etc are not needed, especially when there is already a separate article for that particular exhibit.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The language is neutral, as is the presentation of information.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be 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):

   I haven't yet checked all the images. I'd like to see the amount of images reduced first.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The first task is reducing the images. Second task is to rewrite the lead section. Third task is to create a section on the building, and the layout of the departments within the building. Fourth task is to reduce the sections on the external sites. Fifth task is to go through the article and make the prose clearer and more readable.

Reviewing

I'll take a look and give my first impression within a couple of days. SilkTork *^YES! 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only glanced over so far, but I see some good things there. Points for comment that stood out for me are that there are too many images so the page looks cluttered - be selective in both which images to use, and in how to present them (see WP:Images and MOS:IMAGES for suggestions - and also look at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries to check compliance for the image gallery at the end); and that the lead section needs attention - a summary of the history would be useful, and some organisation so there is a bit more clarity about what and where the Imperial War Museum is. See WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a closer look, and it seems there is a bit of work to do. Probably not as much as it sounds. There is plenty of information here, it's just a case of organising the material. Big museums tend to be big subjects so they can be demanding to write about. I'll pop back later and if you need some help I'll gladly chip in and do a bit. SilkTork *^YES! 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. Appreciate you taking the time to review the article, and for your comments. I'll give things a bit more thought, but the point about the image gallery is well taken. That was a hold over from an earlier version of the article, and I intend to replace it with a panoramic shot of the atrium which gives an impression of the space. I'll remove the gallery now, and prune some of the images.IxK85 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Me again. Have rewritten the lead, I think it now better reflects the contents of the article.IxK85 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have clarified the mention of the PIRA attack in 1992.IxK85 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have had another tinker with the lead. Think the 'what and where' issue you identified is now clearer. About the HMS Belfast section, I think the background to the trust is important to illustrate the museum's involvement from the beginning of the efforts to preserve her. Can probably prune some of the service career details though.--IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Some great improvements. Well done.

I have a couple of quibbles - the Directors section - see WP:NLIST and WP:Embedded lists. My suggestion is to write that up in prose, and drop mention of the non-notable (red-link) people. Example: "The museum has had six directors from 1917 to the present. The first was Martin Conway, 1st Baron Conway of Allington. Conway was an art critic, politician and mountaineer, as well as Professor of Art at University College, Liverpool; and Slade Professor of Fine Arts at Cambridge University. He was knighted in 1895 for his efforts in mapping the Karakoram Range in the Himalayas. Other notable directors - Noble Frankland, the Official Military Historian to the Cabinet Office.... "

The other quibble is the Collections section. Do all the departments need their own subsections (rather than being dealt with under the Collections heading)? And if so, why are they organised in that particular order? Is that all the departments? If so, can you say so - as in "The Museum is organised into seven departments responsible for different aspects of the collections. All the departments can be accessed online.... "

Great work so far. I'll pop back later. SilkTork *^YES! 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see what I can do regarding the Directors section, which should be straightforward enough. About Collections, no, that's not all the departments - I need to add a section on the Department for Holocaust and Genocide History, but was holding off pending a section about the museum's permanent exhibitions, of which the Holocaust Exhibition would be one. I think given that the museum has a very diverse collection, the subsections are useful. In due course I hope to expand the sections to something like the collections section of the British Museum. No particular reason for their arrangement in that order, other than the fact that all the material has been collected since the museum's origins in 1917, except Sound which is named last.--IxK85 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending the things above, I've trimmed the section on HMS Belfast.--IxK85 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Have converted the Directors section into prose, and added a section on the Dept of Holocaust and Genocide History. Will work on a section on the building.--IxK85 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Have added a section on the building. --IxK85 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have expanded the intro paragraph to the Collections section.--IxK85 (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pass review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose has picked up, and become more direct and active. It still needs attention in places, but is overall readable and clear.

   B. MoS compliance:

   All sections now appear to be MoS compliant. The lead in particular is much clearer.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   The Collections section could do with sourcing for the two paragraph overview. The material there is not contentious and unlikely to be challenged so I am passing it, but it would be good to get a source. There was some suggestion of a new building being created around 1966, which I have called an extension - that needs clarifying and correcting and sourcing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This is broad in coverage, though for balance (and for the benefit of the general reader) some development of information on the actual collection and the major exhibits (such as the 15 inch guns) would be worthwhile.

   B. Focused:

   The main problems with the article was that it tended to go off focus quite a lot. I have gone through and been quite necessarily savage with the trimming - and there may be a bit more to be done on the Redevelopment section. The general reader will be interested in the main aspects of the background history - for closer detail there are the related articles, and for study there are the appropriate sources.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Checked. I have removed one contentious image

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   An informative and interesting article

The article meets the GA criteria and been passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)