Talk:The Museum of Curiosity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Museum of Curiosity has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| This article is supported by the UK Radio task force. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Good article review
This is an interesting article with good coverage of its topic. It needs some more work to reach GA status, however.
- Not all the information in this article is supported by citations.
- Much of it is obviously drawn from the primary source (the radio show), which is fine, but per the manual of style primary sources need to be cited just like secondary sources.
- Some of the statements with citations do not reflect the content of the source. One issue is the claim that the show has been "praised and criticised for the similarity" to QI. One cited source (Lezard) mentions the similarity but does not seem to base his opinion of the show on it in any way; the other source seems to be criticizing the show for not being similar enough. The Lezard review is also rather lukewarm about the show; I do not believe the article's claim that he "praised" it is justified.
- Some of the gift information in the "Episodes" section is difficult to understand. I'm not sure why scarf is wikilinked, when the gift did not involve any clothing. Some are wikilinks unclear, like the giant hornet, which links to an animal species. Was the entire population of this species the gift? Just one specimen? Or is this referring to a sculpture? The same questions apply to yeti, angler fish and pineapples.
- The lead section is too long. Per WP:LEAD#Length an article of this size should have only one or two paragraphs as a lead. I would suggest moving some information from the lead into the "Format" section.
- As an American not familiar with the BBC lineup, it was not immediately clear that Radio 4 was actually a radio show and not just an artsy name for a television show. This is more of a personal opinion than the rest of the review, but it would be nice to have in the lead a specific statement that The Museum of Curiosity is a radio show.
These are criticisms relating to Good Article criteria 1 and 2. I consider this article to meet criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6 quite nicely; I enjoyed reading the article. I encourage the nominator to continue working on the article and renominate it in the future. LyrlTalk C 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've carried out the changes that you asked for and I believe that the article is now good enough to be of GA status. ISD (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've moved citations to be closer to the statements they support (let me know if I'm just missing the information when reading the source). I used the external link as a source for the "has yet to be broadcast" statement, and requested sources for two other statements. I also modified some of the language in the "Reception" section. Let me know what you think of the language modifications, find those last two sources, and I don't see any other obstacles to GA status. LyrlTalk C 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
