Talk:Suquamish Museum

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suquamish Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey hey, I'll be happy to take this one! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1a

• "The Suquamish Museum opened in 1983 as the "Suquamish Museum and Cultural Center," then" → No quotes needed.
• You might add {{convert}} to "9,000 square foot" so it's also in m² for non-US readers.
• "240-meter long longhouse" Same as above.
• "the artifacts - which include harpoon points, smoking pipes, and jewelry - were transferred" I'm not sure dashes belong here; you might instead just use commas. If you do prefer dashes, WP:MDASH dictates that you use either a spaced en dash ("the artifacts – which include") or an unspaced emdash ("the artifacts—which include").
• "300-year-old, carved canoe" No comma needed.
• ""Paddle to Seattle,"" No quotes needed.
• "now-annual" Hyphen not needed as now is an adverb.
• "Native Words, Native Warriors,"" Comma goes outside quotes per MOS:LQ.

1b

• The lead needs to be expanded to encompass a little more of the article's body. For an article of this length, another one or two sentences would be good, especially ones detailing the museum's history and maybe something from the Management section.

2a, b, and c

• Very nicely sourced. Lots of usage of the official museum website but enough reliance on secondary sources that this isn't a problem. No OR detected.
• Would it be possible to get a source for the President, Curator, and Director from the infobox?

3a and b

• Touches on the important aspects of the museum, its history, and its collection without going on any tangents.

4 and 5

• No neutrality problems noticed. Very stable article.

6a

• Logo image is hosted on en with adequate FUR.
• Main entrance image is freely licensed, hosted on en (could be moved to commons) and looks good.
• Interior image: hosted on en with free license. Question: are all the artifacts in this picture in the public domain? I think that's why that image has a {{Wrong license}} template.

6b

• Looks good. Very relevant images.

This article is close to GA status. There are a couple of punctuation quibbles and the big thing is the need for more in the lead but the article is very nearly a Good one. I'll give you a week to work on it. Happy Thanksgiving (if you celebrate that sort of thing!) Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Good changes to the article. Two things, however: the lead now mentions that the new building was constructed in 2011. This is not a fact mentioned elsewhere in the article. You might include that information (sourced, of course) somewhere in the article body or instead of saying that it was constructed 2011, say it opened 2012 which you do mention in the body. The other issue is the image of the artifacts in the museum. Are you sure all of those pictured are old enough to qualify as public domain? If they are, you may wish to include {{PD-old}} on the file description page to indicate that the art and tools in the image are public domain, even as your picture is GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 21:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobamnertiopsis - I think I've correctly made these corrections. Please let me know if I missed anything. DocumentError (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'm happy to pass this article. Good work! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)