Talk:Churchill War Rooms/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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)