Talk:Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi I will review the article for GA and do minor corrections myself and come back here with other points. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this review? I haven't heard anything in over a week. TarkusAB  20:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am extremely sorry. I have been very busy off-wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

General

 * Not compulsory, but maybe all images can have WP:ALT
 * Done. TarkusAB  16:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they were better without ALT than "refer to caption". Anyways! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not compulsory again, but maybe all web references can be archived.
 * All images are from Commons and properly licensed.
 * No disambiguation links found.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector is suggesting a lot of possible copyvio. Please check for close paraphrasing from the used sources and rephrase the sentences.
 * Done. TarkusAB  16:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Content

 * There is no uniformity in the way timings are mentioned throughout the article. Please follow MOS:TIME and maintain consistency.
 * Done. TarkusAB  01:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikilink these: Boston Police Department, St. Patrick's Day
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "He claims security logs..." --> "He claimed security logs..." Use past tense.
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the case always referred in media as "Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft"? Or do they use "Gardner Museum theft" or "Gardner heist" or something such? If there are other popular names, although sounding unencyclopaedic, they could be mentioned in Popular culture section. Am sure the press found some fancy names for this.
 * There is no over-arching term referring to the crime. The title of the article itself, "Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft", isn't anymore significant than the other suggestions you made, it is just the most accurate and encyclopedic way to describe the event. The museum itself is usually referred to as the "Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum" and sometimes informally as the "Gardner Museum". The event has been called a "theft", "robbery", and "heist" equally, but none of these terms are unique or "fancy" enough to be notable and included in the article; it's just what you would call any event like this. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article should mention the statute of limitation related to the jurisdiction. I have heard in some documentary on Youtube on how the limitation is over and now the case can't be filed if culprits are found.
 * Do you have a specific source? TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not relocate the YouTube video. But you may use either of these links 1, 2, 3 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks. TarkusAB  21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has too many quotes from people. These are not all very important and can be paraphrased.
 * Done. TarkusAB  01:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a doubt, the museum nowhere had any security cameras? Not even in the reception areas? I don't know how common was it to install cameras in 1990s in USA. Or have we missed mentioning it? And then it says some video was released in 2015. Which camera recorded it?
 * The museum did have a camera in the lobby which recorded recorded that video released in 2015. This is the only time I have seen any mention of a camera, or any actual footage. One must assume that the camera also captured the robbery itself, but that has not been stated by any officials and no video has been released. Yes security cameras are common in the US, especially in a building holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art. The management hadn't really kept up with technology and had lackluster security, which was the reason it was targeted. The building itself is art and part of the exhibit. Isabella imported the architecture from all parts of the world (mainly Europe). It hasn't been changed for 100 years, which also made it easier to rob, one can imagine. I have been to the museum on multiple occasions, but I didn't really look around for security technology. But they do have people EVERYWHERE telling you not to touch anything. I'd imagine though, after suffering a theft like that, they'd be extremely stupid not to bolster their security.   TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The message was published, but the dissapeared after law enforcement got involved." What disappeared?
 * The writer, fixed. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "his favorite hiding spot" ---> "his preferred hiding spot"
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "claims he is still owed 15%" ---> "claims he still owes 15%"
 * These two phrases don't mean the same thing. The source states he is still owed 15%, meaning that someone else owes him 15% of the money gained from selling the artwork. Your suggestion would mean that he owes someone 15%, which is incorrect. TarkusAB  21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no exact idea about this, but just how we convert other currencies to US dollars, is there a convention to convert USDs in any other currency? Maybe British Pound or Euro or whatever? Example Template:INRConvert is used to convert Indian Rupee in USD.
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All currencies are in USD. Are you asking if there is a template to convert any currency to any other currency of the reader's choice? I don't think that's possible. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No! What i meant was that has the US-centric Wikipedia ever bothered to make template and convention for converting US dollars into other currencies which are equally important, rather than just write essays on how WP is not US-centric? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah I understand, I looked at the currency conversion templates available, nothing like that exists. Also, per WP:$, "In country-specific articles, use the currency of the subject country." Since this robbery happened in the United States, no evidence has been found of the paintings leaving the US, the bounty is in USD, and the primary investigative team is under the US govt, I don't see any reason to use other currency formats. TarkusAB  18:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As said, i have no idea if such convention exists. But just wanted to check. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aftermaths should be mentioned in brief. Maybe how the museum itself upgraded their security, or how Police department incorporated some changes or how other museums took some preventive steps, etc.
 * I agree, I would have included by now, but I have not found any sources that discuss this. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "and proceeded to bring the guards to the museum's basement." ---> " and proceeded to take the guards to the museum's basement."
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "wrapped duct tape around the their hands, feet, and heads." ---> " wrapped duct tape around the their hands, feet, and heads."
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "They pulled the painting off the attempted to take the wooden panel out of its heavy frame." ---> " They pulled the painting off and attempted to take the wooden panel out of its heavy frame."
 * Another user fixed it before me! TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "To get to the flag, they passed by two Raphaels and a Botticelli painting." I assume you mentioned this to point out that the thieves should have in fact stolen these items. It should hence be moved from "Robbery" section to maybe "Investigation" where " selection of works puzzles the experts" has been mentioned.
 * Great observation! I have moved it. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On few occasion cite web has not been used but only bare urls are used. Maybe use uniform styles there too.
 * Done. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation needed tag should be resolved.
 * removed unsourced content. TarkusAB  21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1a - Done
 * The six good article criteria checks:

• 1b - Done

• 2a - Done

• 2b - Done

• 2c - Done

• 2d - Done

• 3a - Done

• 3b - Done

• 4 - Done

• 5 - Done

• : 6a - Done

• : 6b - Done The article is well written and good job. There are some points not completed and noted in GA review above. But they are not going to hinder the GA as they are not compulsory by GA criteria but more like to-dos if this goes to FA. Congratulations for the new GA!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! thank you so much for doing this review! Definitely helped the page.  TarkusAB  10:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)