Talk:Museum of Oxford/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

QUICK FAIL Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, this is a quick fail due to it being a long way from meeting several GA criteria outlined below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Multiple MoS issues throughout the article, ranging from major problems like poor structure and formatting that does not conform to MOS:LAYOUT to wrong date ranges and even minor issues like inconsistent use of currencies.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Multiple "citation needed" tags in the article.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   There are some reliable sources, but the article also relies on commercial sources (https://www.purcelluk.com/projects/museum-of-oxford/) and websites linking to event pages (https://www.experienceoxfordshire.org/event/museum-of-oxford-little-edens/ or https://museumofoxford.org/event/little-edens). Sources need to be chosen more carefully.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article does not provide sufficient coverage of the subject, uses arbitrary section titles, and the reader is left wanting. This is likely due to limited amount of reliable sources. For example, the history section offers no details on the building in which the museum is housed, despite its implied historical importance, or how the early years of the museum's activities and focuses almost exclusively on post-2005 events.

   b. (focused):

   There is undue emphasis on tangents (section on "Rented spaces" for example).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are parts of the article that use advertising tone like Also available is a kitchenette, museum props, Wi-Fi, furniture, baby changing areas, gender neutral toilets, and on-site catering. etc.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Most appear to have been uploaded by the author, although explanation is needed for objects depicted in the photographs like File:Oliver Cromwell's death mask MOX.jpg which has no date of the work (was it contemporary or cast long after Cromwell's death?)

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   The article in its current form is a C-class article at best and it needs extensive work to get to GA.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.