Jump to content

Talk:Imperial War Museum Duxford/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Images

I don't like having a gallery here. Could we instead select the best images and integrate them per usual practice? --John (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Monty was in charge of D-Day???

This doesn't sound right to me. Nor does the following sentence, which implies that he continued this overall command until the end of the war (which I know to be untrue [Eisenhower]). Historian932 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It says he was in charge of all allied ground forces, which he was, as commander of 21st Army Group. Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of all allied forces. Here's a quick reference: "... appointment of Englishmen to all three subordinate commands for OVERLORD - Sir Bernard Montgomery on land, Sir Bertram Ramsey at sea, Sir Trafford Leeigh-Mallory for air." (Hastings, Max (1999). Overlord. London: Pan. p. 35. ISBN 9780330390125.) He continued to lead 21st Army Group, although it was reorganised to mainly consist of British and Canadian forces, the previously subordinate US forces going back under US control. Hohum (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Declaring my interest

Hello all. I am a curator at the Imperial War Museum, and I recently got the main IWM article to Good Article status. I would like to try and do the same for this article. I have already declared my conflict of interest at WP:COIN and the responses I received are copied on my talk page. I propose to start by rewriting the lead and restructuring the article - at the moment various sections are in wrong place. If any editor has objections to my edits, they are invited to discuss them here.--IxK85 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good that some work is being put into the article, however, can you provide references to the information you are adding - this is needed if it's ever going to get beyond a Start class. Hohum (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Of course, verifiability is very important. I think the first thing to do is the History section, which at the moment is largely a copy of the history on the IWM Duxford website. --IxK85 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulleted columns

At the moment the bulleted columns of aircraft and vehicles make the article unneccessarily long and break up the structure of the sections. I propose to change, for example, the AirSpace bullets to the table below.

  1. ^ Imperial War Museum Duxford (June 2008)Aircraft and Vehicles. Accessed 25 August 2009.


This way provides more information and a more complete list, is cited, and reduces the 'bulkiness' of the article. However, as this article has used the current structure for a long time I thought it best to propose this first. Will go ahead if there are no objections. -- IxK85 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked: I dislike the grey of the default wikitable, it's pretty jarring in articles as far as I'm concerned.
Irritatingly, the article looks ok as-is to Firefox users, since it renders the double columned lists correctly. Hohum (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you reckon then? Go with your tweaked table? --IxK85 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Another alternative is to use a non CSS3 implementation of columns, which should render in all browsers, and is far easier to edit than a table.
Hohum (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, will go with that version. --IxK85 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

American Air Museum - proposed expansion/Image gallery

As the AAM is architecturally notable in its own right, I propose to add a section on the architecture and construction of the building. Also the image gallery does not really comply with WP:IG, and some of the images show aircraft that have since been moved to other locations (Vulcan, Lancaster, Mosquito, Concorde). Propose to trim those images now and try and find better images for relevant sections, so the gallery can be removed. --IxK85 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All sounds good. Galleries have always seemed to me to be the equivalent of "misc" sections of text, and the guidelines encourage streaming text (so why not images too) into relevant places in the description instead of being dumped in a list of their own. – Kieran T (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, in the absense of a decent panorama of the inside of the AAM, I'm going to move and rearrange some of the shots currently in the gallery. --IxK85 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Land Warfare Hall

Propose to chop the sections on the Land Warfare Hall, Normandy Experience and Monty, and replace with the below. Also I think the list of theatres and vehicles is not particularly useful.

Land Warfare Hall
The Land Warfare Hall was opened on 28 September 1992[2] by Field Marshal Lord Bramall. The building provides accommodation for the Imperial War Museum's collection of armoured vehicles, artillery and military vehicles. Also included are vehicles belonging to the Duxford Aviation Society Military Vehicle Section.[3][4] The hall comprises a viewing balcony that runs for most of the length of the hall, providing views over a range of tableaux of vehicles, tanks and artillery that run chronologically from the First World War to the present day. The Second World War in particular is illustrated with tableaux of the North African Campaign, the Eastern Front and the invasion of Normandy.[5] Significant vehicles in the collection include three caravans used by Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, commander of 21st Army Group during the north-west Europe campaign. Also on display are extracts from Montgomery's personal papers, which are held by the Imperial War Museum's Department of Documents.[6] Other tableaux depict scenes from post-war conflicts such as the Korean War, the Northern Ireland Troubles, the Falklands War, British peacekeeping contributions in Bosnia and the Gulf War. As many of the vehicles in the Land Warfare Hall are maintained in running condition, the site features garages and a running area behind the building.

--IxK85 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

History section.

I'm sorry to say that I think the history section is too long and detailed compared to the rest of the article. The article should concentrate on the museum role, because that is the subject. Hohum (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I think a certain amount of detail is needed, given that part of Duxford's value is in its preservation of a historic site, but I'll see what can be trimmed. --IxK85 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft lists

Watching how the article is developing, I'm not sure the lists of aircraft are actually necessary (given the link to the Aircraft and Vehicles list) and they probably violate the guideline on summary style. Chopping them and replacing them with prose about especially notable aircraft would probably make the article rather easier to read. Thoughts? --IxK85 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments?

Looking at the article now I think it's more or less complete. Has anyone any comments or objections before I put it up for Good Article review? --IxK85 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imperial War Museum Duxford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  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'll take a look over the next couple of days. SilkTork *YES! 17:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Observations
  • "ordnance" in the lead is not explained in the body, and Ordnance on Wikipedia offers a range of choices.
  • rather a lot of info about the airfield in the first paragraph before we get an adequate description of the museum. The article is about the museum rather than the airfield, so that should get priority.
  • expand lead - there is information in the main body which needs to be summarised in the lead. Remember that the lead should stand alone as a short overview of the topic. All the main points should be in the lead. That it contains the largest number of listed buildings on one site seems worthy of comment in the lead, for example. Though some clarity is needed - is it *the largest number of listed buildings, the largest number of aviation listed buildings, or the largest number of listed aviation buildings added during the seven year review? WP:Lead is helpful
  • there are a large number of images. Consider how helpful they are to the reader, and the overall impact they make on the article. MOS:IMAGES and Wikipedia:Layout#Images are helpful.
  • Read Wikipedia:External links and review the external links - there are rather a lot, and at a glance it looks like some don't belong
  • an overview of the site layout would be useful - I am not sure of the relation of the north side to the south side.
  • the article is structured in three main sections - History, South side, and North side - is there a more useful way of structuring the information? The South side section is huge with several sub-sections and even sub-sub-sections, while the North side is a short paragraph.
  • query the presentation of the history of the airfield as part of the history of the museum. consider a brief summary of the Imperial War Museum history leading to the establishment of the branch at Duxford - and then introduce the history of the site. Consider just how much history of the site to include, given that the proper place for such history is Duxford Aerodrome
  • air shows. The museum is notable for the air shows, and they are dealt with in a sub-sub-section. Consider having a section devoted to the air shows and building on it. I could image that the shows are notable enough, and could generate enough material eventually for a standalone article.

More later... SilkTork YES! 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Some of those can be dealt with quickly, 'ordnance' for example. Regarding the external links, I've removed one but I think the rest are sufficiently informative to be worth keeping. Image trimming should be easy too. Will give the more substantial stuff some thought.--IxK85 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have trimmed the images, they should now all sit within their sections. I hope to be able to upload some better images shortly. Have also rewritten the lead. --IxK85 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the way the lead is developing. Keep an eye on it as you edit the main body so adjustments are made in tandem. SilkTork *YES! 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Duxford Radio Society is mentioned in the body and appropriately sourced so it should not be in the External links section. Again, please read WP:EL to become familiar with guidance on using external links, and review the other links. SilkTork *YES! 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Had another look at WP:EL, and have removed the unofficial history and Duxford Radio Society. I think the duxford-update link is informative and useful, and does not appear to have any commercial interest, but I've deleted it anyway since it already appears in the references. Have also been working on a rejig of the history section in my userspace, will copy it across shortly.--IxK85 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Have reordered the history section; it's not quite finished and needs some tinkering with, but at least now the museum history is emphasised first.--IxK85 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're getting there. I think you could afford to trim back a bit more on the IWM history - readers just need a general idea of the history and where Duxford fits in. SilkTork *YES! 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Have tightened the museum history section, clarified (hopefully) the site layout question and restructured the south side section. Will see what I can do about beefing up the air shows section. --IxK85 (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Have moved and expanded the airshows section. --IxK85 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good! The article is now immediately clearer, and I can see a sense in the structure, and know where to go within the article to get the information I want. I'll do a close review later on how the article meets the criteria listed above. Before I do, it might be worth adding some refs to the early history section. This article is standing on its own, and so must be sourced in such a manner that anyone reading can check the sources on this page without having to hunt for them on another page of Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Duly referenced; one more possible reference to add to the first paragraph of Museum history. Will add it later. --IxK85 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Nice work. Passed. SilkTork *YES! 08:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Airshows and flying

Hello all. If no one objects I'd like to update the third paragraph of 'Airshows and flying' as it's becoming increasingly out of date. Propose to replace that paragraph with:

Major air shows held regularly include the Duxford Air Show, the Flying Legends show (organised by The Fighter Collection), and American Air Day, which is held in conjunction with units of the Third Air Force (part of the United States Air Forces in Europe), based at nearby RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall.[7] The Duxford Air Show usually exhibits a wide range of aircraft, from vintage warbirds to contemporary jet aircraft, along with aerobatic flying by groups such as the Red Arrows.[8] while the Flying Legends show focuses on historic aircraft, especially those of the Second World War.[9] In 2008 it was reported that these displays generate up to £1.8 million, while the loss of up to £100,000 due to adverse weather is also budgeted for. The policing bill, necessary to manage the resulting road traffic, was reported as some £8,000.[10] Recent major events have included the Battle of Britain 70th Anniversary airshow, held on 4-5 September 2010. The show was attended by more than 40,000 people,[11] and featured formation displays by four Hawker Hurricanes and sixteen Spitfires.[12]

IxK85 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Imperial War Museum Duxford (June 2008)Aircraft and Vehicles. Accessed 25 August 2009.
  2. ^ The Independent (29 September 1992) Photograph caption: 'Sentry duty at the Land Warfare Exhibition Hall which opened yesterday at the Imperial War Museum in Duxford, Cambridgeshire. The display contains 40 artillery pieces, more than 50 tanks, and military vehicles including three lorries used as a bedroom and offices by Field Marshal Montgomery in the Second World War'. independent.co.uk. Accessed 28 August 2009.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference A&V was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Duxford Aviation Society Military Vehicle Section. Accessed 28 August 2009.
  5. ^ Imperial War Museum Duxford Land Warfare Hall. Accessed 28 August 2009.
  6. ^ 'Montgomery documents',The Times 8 July 1982, Issue 61280, page 2 column A
  7. ^ Royal Air Force Lakenheath (11 August 2009) Third annual American Air Day at The Imperial War Museum Duxford. Accessed 4 September 2009.
  8. ^ For example, see Johnson, Paul (September 2009) Flightline UK The Duxford Air Show 2009. Accessed 20 October 2009.
  9. ^ Fenwick, Simon (2009) Flightline UK Flying Legends 2009. Accessed 20 October 2009.
  10. ^ Holt, John (September 2008) 'Air play' Museums Journal Vol.108 No.9 p.32-35
  11. ^ Culture24 (6 September 2010). "Thousands of fans enjoy Imperial War Museum Duxford's Battle of Britain Air Show". Retrieved 1 November 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ "Duxford BofB show is a hit", Aeroplane Monthly, IPC Media: p. 7, 1 November 2010 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_War_Museum_Duxford/Archive_1&oldid=1136814978"