Talk:Intrepid Museum/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Seawolf35 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's me again! I love military history related articles, this will be a fun review. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * -Tons of refs, as always.
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * Pass or Fail: Pass

Detailed Comments

 * "Space Shuttle Enterprise" should probably be linked on the first occurrence in the lead, in the second paragraph instead of the third. MOS:REPEATLINK
 * You could probably link "World war II" in the lead, I will leave that to your discretion.
 * Link "USS Growler" only once in the lead, it is linked twice.
 * Under "1980s", Attendance had been negatively impacted because of the lack of nearby public transit, so the museum had recorded 450,000 patrons in 1984, nearly half of the 800,000 annual patrons that were required to break even. sounds a bit choppy. I might reword it to something that mentions the number of recorded patrons first then the cause of the lack of patrons. That is my personal style but I recommend rewording that sentence.
 * Under "Renovation", Before the carrier was moved, workers had to dredge about 20,000 cu yd (15,000 m3) of silt around her propellers., this sentence seems like a bit of unnecessary trivia. The dredging was mentioned in previous paragraph and this sentence seems unnecessary.
 * Personal preference, but the caption of the E-1 tracer exhibit could have "on the museum" removed, this would make it consistent with the rest of the images of exhibits and their captions.
 * Under "Ships", Most of the museum's aircraft and spacecraft are placed on Intrepid's flight deck... Placed seems redundant, it may just be me though.
 * Overall very well written, very interesting read!
 * Thanks for the comments . I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Source Spot Check

 * 9 ✅
 * 15 ✅
 * 35 ✅
 * 43 ✅
 * 51 ✅
 * 70 ✅
 * 80 ✅
 * 102 ✅
 * 117 ✅
 * 122 ✅
 * 132 ✅
 * 145 ✅
 * 162 ✅
 * 176 ✅
 * 220 ✅

Source check result: I hate trying to look at the NyTimes without an account. ✅ Pass with flying colors.