Talk:Museum de Oude Wolden/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 01:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist
 * Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
 * Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Disambig links: needs resolving for Canalization
 * I have removed the link, because the options on Canalization are not reflecting the correct type of canalization. It was the construction of canals to drain the water from the mire or peatland. – Editør (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: The article's chief issue is the prose, which is far below the standards of a GA article.
 * Reference check: No issues
 * " The museum opened its doors on 10 August 1973." - Far from my favorite line in a lead.
 * ✅, I've removed "its doors" – Editør (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead lacks information on the building's changing artwork and themes and does not make the distinction that the last year the visitors were significantly lower than normal. It seems like both of these things would need to be addressed.
 * ✅, I've rewritten the lead section – Editør (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "which costed 223,000 euro in total.[8]" - cost not costed
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * " the province of Groningen had requested the national government for subsidy to open a new museum in Bellingwolde." - works fine without the "had" before requested.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The subsidy was not granted, but the state payed for the restoration of the museum building.[1]" - paid, not payed. The only time in which it would be "payed" is when you mean to slacken something. American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's both agree with this.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1976, the museum exhibited mainly historical objects" - primarily not mainly.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "from the regions Oldambt and Westerwolde" - "of" is needed before Oldambt.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "the museum could hold temporary exhibitions" - if it did, then it is "held".
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "By the late 1980s, also a barber shop..." drop the "also"
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * " and shoemaker inventory were shown in the museum" - "Shoemaker's"
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The museum was then described in the press.." - wording.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "n 2010, there was a break-in in the museum, and seven 17–19th-century icons with an estimated value of 23,000 euro were stolen." - awkward prose.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The museum dropped the word streek (regional) from its name and now calls itself" - why did it drop the word?
 * Possibly it was a marketing decision, but I have not found the answer to your question in a published document. – Editør (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "municipality Bellingwedde" - Flip. Bellingwedde muncipality or just drop "muncipality" as it ruins the flow.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FTE needs to be explained.
 * The "1.7 FTE" is a quantification of "small paid staff". Do you mean the definition of the term FTE should be explained? In that case wouldn't the wikilink suffice? Or do you mean something else? – Editør (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it "Full Time Equivelent"? The abbreviation should be written out for its first usage, and then marked with (FTE). It is just a matter of clarity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ok, if you believe that is clearer, I've changed the first "FTE" into "full-time equivalent or FTE". – Editør (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obby Veenstra is the museum director - "has been" instead of is the
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In 2008, the museum had 1,965 visitors, including about 700 paying visitors. - bit awkward
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (see table) should be removed.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "24 kilometre" - Kilometers.
 * ✅ – Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks pretty good, but I'd do a general copyedit on it just to clean it up some more. Expansion on the exhibits and the history of the building itself would be good as well. Going to place this on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your comments, I tried to resolve most issues right away. I will have a look at the lead and wording of the break-in later. – Editør (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all points from your review. – Editør (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, just the FTE matter remains, which is rather trivial at this point. I'll give it a look through again in a bit and likely pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have explained FTE in the text, hopefully everything is solved now. – Editør (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)