Talk:Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderfully weird subject. Reminds me of something local to me, which, sadly, has a terrible article. Anyway, I'll take a read through...

Looking at the images, firstly, which building is the museum? Secondly, was the photograph of the nutcrackers taken in the museum?
The lead reads a little listy; just a list of points, especially the second paragraph. Could it be smoothed out a little?
Bavarian and Linden are both dablinks
Now I've started reading, the whole thing feels a little choppy... It just jumps from one thing to the next. Wagner's life is discussed (in a very odd order) and then you jump to the size of the museum, then you jump to TV appearances... It just needs to be smoothed out a bit. Don't be scared of longer sentences. Perhaps it needs to be reordered a little- I get that it's meant to be vaguely chronological at the moment, but maybe it would be best to separate out the discussions of the items in the collection from the discussion of the museum itself.
"A bronze Roman piece circa 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 is one of the oldest in the museum – it was discovered in 1960 and is a rare item that was unearthed after over 1,800 years." Could do with rephrasing
"Wagner bought the item from Rik Gijsen, a Netherlands-based antiquities dealer.[22] The piece was acquired by the museum in April 2006.[23]" This is a great example of two choppy sentences that could be merged into one smoother one.
I don't think "Reception" is really the correct term, though I can't really think of what would be.
Not completely sure that "Arlene Wagner is regarded as a "national authority" on the subject of nutcrackers.[31]" belongs in that section.
The formatting on the references is a bit all over the place. Periodicals (newspapers, magazines and such) should be italicised, as should books, other things should not be. For instance, why is "Northwest Cable News" italicsed? Why is "Popwatch"? Why isn't "Entertainment Weekly"? Why is "king5.com"? And so on

I'm sorry, this article really seems to be lacking something, it doesn't feel quite right. I think it really needs to be cut up a little- a separate section on the nutcrackers kept (where you can talk about the numbers of nutcrackers and the specific nutcrackers talked about by the sources) and perhaps a separate section about the museum generally; where it is, the shop, the fact it's open to the public, and so on, rather than placing everything in the history section. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I thank you for doing the review. I think unfortunately your concerns are valid, it would take too much effort to address them within the scope of the GA Review itself, I think the most prudent thing to do would be to close at this time as unsuccessful, and work to address issues for a later point in time, for a possible subsequent renomination. Thanks again for doing the review. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's a good attitude to have. Feel free to notify me if you renominate, and, depending on time constraints, I'd probably be happy to do another review. For now, I will fail the article. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]