Talk:National Museum of Industrial History/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy to pick this up. I should say that, although I don't think it will fail under the Quick fail criteria, it will under 1a, "It is reasonably well written". I will provide some examples, but it needs a good copy edit to bring the prose up to the necessary standard. The main editor/nominator might want to request the service of the Guild of Copy Editors that could help with this. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):

Unfortunately, the prose is not currently of GA standard. I list some examples below, but there are plenty more, and have made a suggestion in the intro as to how it could be improved. But for the time being, it can't Pass.
 * Lede
 * "a museum affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute that seeks to preserve, educated, and display the rich Industrial History of the nation" - "educated" doesn't work (tense?), "rich" is POV, the capitalisation of "Industrial History" is incorrect.
 * "The $7.5 million museum has four exhibitions focusing on a different aspect of industrial history" - either "The $7.5 million museum has four exhibitions each focusing on a different aspect of industrial history", or, "The $7.5 million museum has four exhibitions focusing on different aspects of industrial history".
 * "The museum pays homage to the nation's industrial path by highlighting the machinery and the lives of workers at that time period" - "pays homage" is not encyclopedic, I suspect "industrial path" should read "industrial past", and "at that time period" is unclear. What time period?
 * History
 * "has been brought to life with concerts" - why not "holds"?
 * "Even though the steel industry has left the Bethlehem area, the history still remains true to its core." - what does this mean?
 * "but was sidelined due to some legal issues" - "some legal issues" isn't encyclopedic and you'll need to explain what they are.
 * Exhibitions
 * "Upon entering the museum, visitors are greeted by the Machinery Hall, which pays homage to the then-current technology the American Industry had to offer" - "Upon entering the museum visitors are greeted" is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, "pays homage" - see above, "the American Industry" - what industry and why the Caps?
 * Artifacts
 * "The nearly $7.5 million museum houses over 200 magnificent artifacts" - POV.
 * "visitor's are welcomed by artifacts" - no apostrophe.
 * "artifact's" - as above.
 * "This simulation allows you to soar to various destinations" - unencyclopedic.


 * b (MoS):

The article broadly meets MoS but there is an issue:
 * The article's structure is odd. The Exhibitions section covers 4/5 halls/galleries but material presented here is then repeated in the Artifacts section. An example: Propane Gallery - "Visitors are able to step into a hot air balloon basket to not only learn about how propane fuels this device but also get a sense of an actual hot air balloon ride". How does this differ from; Artifacts - "is an interactive hot air balloon simulation. This simulation allows you to soar to various destinations..."? Either the artifcats are described in the relevant galleries sections and not elsewhere, or the galleries sections shouldn't include details of artifacts described in a separate section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):

Broadly, these look ok, and they support the claims. There are a few issues:
 * Source 3 is subscription and this should be noted.
 * Are not Sources 2,7,8,9,12 the same source, just accessed on different days?
 * Ditto 4,6,10,11
 * Ditto 5,18


 * b (citations to reliable sources):

The sources seem reliable.


 * c (OR):

I don't see evidence of OR.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

Some of the main editor's/nominator's material has previously been removed for CV. This appears to be addressed and the Copyvio Tool does not flag a concern. But I am still concerned that elements read as if they are close paraphrasing. This for example, "Upon entering the museum, visitors are greeted by the Machinery Hall, which pays homage to the then-current technology the American Industry had to offer", or this, "Within this exhibit includes an interactive display of Bethlehem Steel's history of industry dominance to engage the viewers passing by". That's another example of the prose problems, by the way. Can the nominator check that there isn't too close paraphrasing from the sources.

3. It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):

As indicated in 4. below,, the article doesn't currently cover the museum's history adequately.
 * b (focused):

The article focusses appropriately on the areas of the museum's buildings and contents.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:


 * The article makes a single reference to the museum's, very, troubled history. "...due to some legal issues" doesn't adequately cover an 18-year gestation, a Grand Jury investigation, and a jury conclusion that the museum's directors had "squandered $18 million in donations in nearly as many years". The article needs to over all aspects of the museum, including the less positive, and it doesn't currently.

5. It is stable: The article now seems to be stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

These seem to be met.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Some captions are inappropriately capitalised, while others have no capitals at all.

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The nominator has done a good job in expanding the article, although some initial efforts involved too much copyvio. But the article is still quite a way from being a GA. My main concerns are the prose, and the absence of full coverage of the building's rocky road to opening. Personally, I think the article needs more work than can be accomplished in seven days but I'll see what the nominator thinks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been open seven days but the nominator, although active on Wikipedia, hasn't responded to it. So, I'll close it as a Fail. KJP1 (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)