Talk:Imperial War Museum Duxford/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next couple of days. SilkTork *^YES! 17:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have moved and expanded the airshows section. --IxK85 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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