Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Smithsonian Museums/archive1

List of Smithsonian Museums

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on it for a while now and i believe it is at a close to done point. The list is complete according to the Smithsonian website but i would like some input into the categories of the table and the other sections. Any other input would be great as well.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Mostly OK, a few points needing attention

A disambiguation link needs fixing (Portraiture)
Alt text missing from all images.
Linking: Arts and Industries Building linked twice in lead. National Zoological Park is not linked. Some unnecessary linking of everyday terms, e.g. Design, Visitor center, zoo.
The list itself looks impressive. One small quibble is that the "Date opened" heading should read "Year opened".
The years themselves would look better if they were centered in their column, and the column itself is unnecessarily wide.
For the benefit of non-American readers it might be worth including a phrase which explains that the National Mall is an area running between the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument.
MOS point: bolding should not appear in the text.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have fixed most of what you suggested. still working on a few more points.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara As promised...

"List of Smithsonian Museums" vs. "List of Smithsonian museums" — Is "Smithsonian Museum" a title given to a museum or does just mean a museum who is affiliated with the Smithsonian? Although, I wouldn't move the article just on my account (as I'm not sure myself), I think a second opinion on this would be desirable.
Flipping some the locations in table might read better (For example: "Anacostia, Washington, D.C." instead of "Washington, D.C. (Anacostia)"). If you do add a phrase explaining where the National Mall is (per above comments), I'd drop "Washington, D.C" from "Washington, D.C. (National Mall)" and indicate the museum's location as just "National Mall.
I'd mention somewhere in lead that most of the museums are located around the National Mall, but a few are in New York City and Virginia.
I would't italicize the two museums that are closed or not yet built as it's indicated in the table that they are different.
Using {{Panorama}} for the satellite photo might be useful. Also, I'd indicate what number each museum is in the photo's caption instead of the prose.

Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am working on the suggestions you have given me. Got quite a few done but still some small (and not so small) things left to do. Thanks again!--Found5dollar (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... i did a little research and i can not find an official place on the Smithsonian website where the term "Smithsonian Museums" is stated to check if it is capitalized or not. After a quick google search though it seems that most news sources refer to them as "Smithsonian Institution museums." I'm not sure if that means that the page should move there or if the "M" should be lowercase, or if it means nothing what so ever. --Found5dollar (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move it if it's not used with capitalization, worst case it'll be moved back. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 23:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SO should i move it to "List of Smithsonian museums" or "List of Smithsonian Institution museums?"--Found5dollar (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'd say just Smithsonian, per WP:COMMONNAME, as I rarely hear anyone refer to it with its full title in just everday conversation. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I moved the page, but now this peer review does not connec tto the new talk page... help?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with Ruhrfisch, who knows the inner workings of PR better than I. Redirects where set up for the article and its talk page automatically when it was moved, however the links to its history don't work anymore. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

I fixed the link from the article's (new) talk page. Since most of PR is handled by two bots, PR pages are not generally moved. There is a "page=" parameter to add to the PR template that fixes the link to the old name. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace the word "Currently" with something like "As of 2010" or indicate the year when the current condition began. For example in the list itself where it reads "Currently closed...", I would instead use "Closed since YEAR..." or "As of 2010, closed...". It is also used in the lead.
Could the anticipated completion date of the National Museum of African American History and Culture be given somewhere?
I was also wondering if "Half of the National Museum of Asian Art" could be expressed better? Perhaps "Part of the National Museum of Asian Art" or even "One part of the National Museum of Asian Art, along with X" where X is the other museum
Would it make sense to add what the other numbers are to the caption of the aerial view of the Mall? After the museums are identified, could it then say something like "Other Washington DC landmarks which are not part of the Smithsonian include: 1) The Washington Monument, ...
Since all but three of the museums are in Washington DC, should this be stated earlier in the lead? In the first paragraph even?
I think I would also explicitly state the number of museums in DC but not on the mall.
The MOS says numbers under ten should be spelled out in most cases (2 is used where I think two should be)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! i will work on alot of this.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a list article before, but this one looks good. May need more annotation for 'Type of Collection' column before submitting to FLC. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]