Talk:Churchill War Rooms/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I review possibly tonight, but more likely tomorrow morning. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through of this article and it should make GA this time round; but that is not my final comment.

I visited the museum twice, after 1984 (and before its 2005 closure) and I have (published) information on the War Rooms prior to their 1984 re-opening. So there are "things", that to me appear to be "missing" from the article (but that, at the moment, is only a personal opinion). However, I suspect that they are not sufficient to cause me to withhold GA-status this time round, but I may comment on them as I go through the article.

Tomorrow I will start my detailed view of the article, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I will mostly be commenting on "problems", or making (non mandatory) suggestions. So, if I don't have much to say here on a particular section/subsection that probably means that I regard it as OK. There will be an Overall summary at the end to pick up all the points that I don't mention here in my Initial summary.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall comments

This article is compliant with WP:WIAGA, its verifiable, well referenced, neutral and reasonably broad in coverage; so I'm awarding it GA-status. Having made that decision, I consider that there is still scope for improvement, but that does not detract from my award of GA.

In particular:

• The article is well referenced, but is based on a fairly small section of publications. The earliest I have to hand is: "Cabinet War Rooms", After the Battle, Issue 1, 1973, pages 42–44, ISSN 0306-154X.
• The Transatlantic Telephone Room was located behind a toilet door with a Vacant/Engaged indicator. The "toilet" was (I believe) personal so there was apparently a cover story of why Churchhill was in there so often (guess).
• There were at least two underground floors but when I visited (pre 2005 refurbishments) the public only had access to the upper floor.
• A new "inner corridor" was cut through the walls of the adjoining offices and a glass wall built along one side of this corridor to allow the tours of the suite to be self-guiding.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Having visited the museum twice prior to its 2005 refurbishment I can see "bits" missing from the article, but its still of GA material and a good one at that. Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Nergaal (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)