# Talk:Imperial War Museum

Hi there. Anyone who's been following this article will know I've made a lot of changes to it. In the interests of transparency, I am a curator at the IWM. I have endeavoured to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and to stick to facts sourced from WP:RS. I have declared my interest also at WP:COIN. Any editor who thinks my edits are inappropriate is invited to discuss them here. Thanks for reading. IxK85 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Going to add links to aid future verification. Most of the journal articles are accessible via JSTOR, and extracts from The Times can be accessed through the Times Digital Archive at [1]. Subscription is required for both services but many UK public libraries offer remote access.IxK85 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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


### List
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is decent enough, though tends to be dry and factual rather than informative; there is no voice and little awareness of a reader, as such it can be rather boring  and attention drifts in the listing of facts. Some sections, such as the lead, are not clear, and don't give an adequate overview of the museum or it's history. Some paragraphs are short, and tease rather than provide information: "In September 1992 the museum was the target of a Provisional Irish Republican Army attack against London tourist attractions. Two incendiary devices were found and caused minor damage." The devices were found and caused damage? Suggest reading through the article (it sometimes helps to have a reader in mind - a friend or relative) to pick out areas where it is not clear. Also with a view to presenting the information in a way that is interesting rather than merely factual. And to ensure that sentences flow logically - these don't: "A number of ship models were damaged by the blast and a Short Seaplane, which had flown at the Battle of Jutland, was destroyed. In October 1945 the museum mounted a temporary exhibition, its first since the end of the war, which showcased technologies developed by the Petroleum Warfare Department." The second sentence has nothing to do with the first. As regards MoS: the lead is not adequate - see WP:Lead; there are too many images - see MOS:IMAGES.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It appears to be factually accurate with a good range of sources, but these have not yet been checked.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It's worth taking a look at National Gallery (London) for aspects of coverage. I'd like some more details about the building and the layout, and rather less on the background history of HMS Belfast - the ship has only been under the care of the museum since 1978, so the background details of the trust and sailing under Tower Bridge, etc are not needed, especially when there is already a separate article for that particular exhibit.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The language is neutral, as is the presentation of information.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Appears to be stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
I haven't yet checked all the images. I'd like to see the amount of images reduced first.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
The first task is reducing the images. Second task is to rewrite the lead section. Third task is to create a section on the building, and the layout of the departments within the building. Fourth task is to reduce the sections on the external sites. Fifth task is to go through the article and make the prose clearer and more readable.


### Reviewing
I'll take a look and give my first impression within a couple of days. SilkTork *YES! 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only glanced over so far, but I see some good things there. Points for comment that stood out for me are that there are too many images so the page looks cluttered - be selective in both which images to use, and in how to present them (see WP:Images and MOS:IMAGES for suggestions - and also look at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries to check compliance for the image gallery at the end); and that the lead section needs attention - a summary of the history would be useful, and some organisation so there is a bit more clarity about what and where the Imperial War Museum is. See WP:Lead. SilkTork *YES! 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've had a closer look, and it seems there is a bit of work to do. Probably not as much as it sounds. There is plenty of information here, it's just a case of organising the material. Big museums tend to be big subjects so they can be demanding to write about. I'll pop back later and if you need some help I'll gladly chip in and do a bit. SilkTork *YES! 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. Appreciate you taking the time to review the article, and for your comments. I'll give things a bit more thought, but the point about the image gallery is well taken. That was a hold over from an earlier version of the article, and I intend to replace it with a panoramic shot of the atrium which gives an impression of the space. I'll remove the gallery now, and prune some of the images.IxK85 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Me again. Have rewritten the lead, I think it now better reflects the contents of the article.IxK85 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Have clarified the mention of the PIRA attack in 1992.IxK85 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Have had another tinker with the lead. Think the 'what and where' issue you identified is now clearer. About the HMS Belfast section, I think the background to the trust is important to illustrate the museum's involvement from the beginning of the efforts to preserve her. Can probably prune some of the service career details though.--IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Some great improvements. Well done.
I have a couple of quibbles - the Directors section - see WP:NLIST and WP:Embedded lists. My suggestion is to write that up in prose, and drop mention of the non-notable (red-link) people. Example: "The museum has had six directors from 1917 to the present. The first was Martin Conway, 1st Baron Conway of Allington. Conway was an art critic, politician and mountaineer, as well as Professor of Art at University College, Liverpool; and Slade Professor of Fine Arts at Cambridge University. He was knighted in 1895 for his efforts in mapping the Karakoram Range in the Himalayas. Other notable directors - Noble Frankland, the Official Military Historian to the Cabinet Office.... "
The other quibble is the Collections section. Do all the departments need their own subsections (rather than being dealt with under the Collections heading)? And if so, why are they organised in that particular order? Is that all the departments? If so, can you say so - as in "The Museum is organised into seven departments responsible for different aspects of the collections. All the departments can be accessed online.... "
Great work so far. I'll pop back later. SilkTork *YES! 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see what I can do regarding the Directors section, which should be straightforward enough. About Collections, no, that's not all the departments - I need to add a section on the Department for Holocaust and Genocide History, but was holding off pending a section about the museum's permanent exhibitions, of which the Holocaust Exhibition would be one. I think given that the museum has a very diverse collection, the subsections are useful. In due course I hope to expand the sections to something like the collections section of the British Museum. No particular reason for their arrangement in that order, other than the fact that all the material has been collected since the museum's origins in 1917, except Sound which is named last.--IxK85 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Pending the things above, I've trimmed the section on HMS Belfast.--IxK85 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Have converted the Directors section into prose, and added a section on the Dept of Holocaust and Genocide History. Will work on a section on the building.--IxK85 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Have added a section on the building. --IxK85 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Have expanded the intro paragraph to the Collections section.--IxK85 (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


### Pass review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
The prose has picked up, and become more direct and active. It still needs attention in places, but is overall readable and clear.
B. MoS compliance: 
All sections now appear to be MoS compliant. The lead in particular is much clearer.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
The Collections section could do with sourcing for the two paragraph overview. The material there is not contentious and unlikely to be challenged so I am passing it, but it would be good to get a source. There was some suggestion of a new building being created around 1966, which I have called an extension - that needs clarifying and correcting and sourcing.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
This is broad in coverage, though for balance (and for the benefit of the general reader) some development of information on the actual collection and the major exhibits (such as the 15 inch guns) would be worthwhile.
B. Focused: 
The main problems with the article was that it tended to go off focus quite a lot. I have gone through and been quite necessarily savage with the trimming - and there may be a bit more to be done on the Redevelopment section. The general reader will be interested in the main aspects of the background history - for closer detail there are the related articles, and for study there are the appropriate sources.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Checked. I have removed one contentious image
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
An informative and interesting article

The article meets the GA criteria and been passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

About the section recently added, I think the bus route information is probably more useful integrated into the infobox where there is already information on the train and underground connections. Also the night bus routes aren't really relevant; the museum is closed for the night before the first night buses pass. --IxK85 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose a minor change of structure, to incorporate most of the second paragraph of the Collections section into the London building section, as most of that Collections paragraph is discussing the layout and content of the building. --IxK85 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose to expand the 'Directors' section into a section on Governance, to include the museum's Board of Trustees and its composition.--IxK85 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Although this article already has Good Article status, there are a number of changes I'd like to make. For instance, the History section ought to at least mention the acquisition of each branch as a part of the museum's history; at present the article probably overemphasises the redevelopments of the Southwark building. The individual branch sections might benefit from being rewritten, as the branch articles have improved substantially since the main IWM article was last revised. Also, the paragraph on the park is not directly relevant to the museum, and perhaps might be better placed in the Building section (renamed to something like 'Imperial War Museum London: Building and surroundings'. Discussion always welcome. -IxK85 (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Will go ahead and make the changes above in three edits. --IxK85 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit has changed the visitor statistics from the official DCMS figures to newspaper figures, and has removed the total visits to all branches. Given that this page is about the IWM as a whole, and not just IWM London, I propose to revert to the previous stats and reference.--IxK85 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The source referenced has since changed, and as the figures appear reliable, I've readded the total visitor figure. Propose to alter the link to the ranking, however, to make clear that it refers to IWM London.--IxK85 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is now rather outdated as it has the title Imperial War Museum and covers both the larger network and the main museum in Southwark. Although both had the same name until 2011, as the article itself notes the larger network has since been renamed Imperial War Museums and the main museum is now officially Imperial War Museum London. Given that the other branches have their own articles there should really be one for IWM London and another for the larger network – cf. Tate Britain and Tate, both of which were formerly called the Tate Gallery.
How should this be done? Retitle this page in the plural and create a new Imperial War Museum London article? Or vice versa – keep Imperial War Museum as the unofficial but familiar name for the main building and move the content on the organisation as a whole to a new article called Imperial War Museums? I would be inclined to go for the former as that means the least change to the article, but it does raise the question of where Imperial War Museum would redirect. Any thoughts? Ham 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Move this to Imperial War Museum London and leave Imperial War Museum as a redirect to this article, hatnote on the top of this article eg {{for|the organisation|Imperial War Museums}} But flag your thoughts up at the WP:Milhist project for more ideas and opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to move this page to Imperial War Museums, and redirect Imperial War Museum to it. I don't think there's actually a need to create a separate 'IWM London' article. The other branches (HMS Belfast, Cabinet War Rooms, IWM Duxford, IWM North) all have discrete starting points, their own dates of establishment and their own site histories. 'IWM London' by contrast, was, as a name, simply a renaming of a site that had been the Imperial War Museum since 1936, when other sites became IWM Duxford or IWM North. I think the article makes this sufficiently clear as it stands. IxK85 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imperial War Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091001151237/http://duxford.iwm.org.uk:80/server/show/ConWebDoc.5713 to http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5713
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imperial War Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GH338M9J?url=http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30017173 to http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30017173
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Imperial War Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906105945/http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-london/transforming-iwm-london to http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-london/transforming-iwm-london
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325204433/http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B85BA647-2141-45B9-9E64-6797848763E2/0/10WW2FACTSHEET.pdf to http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B85BA647-2141-45B9-9E64-6797848763E2/0/10WW2FACTSHEET.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Imperial War Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603062340/http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download66.pdf to http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download66.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213022014/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23905308-museum-put-on-new-war-footing-with-pound-71m-rebuild.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23905308-museum-put-on-new-war-footing-with-pound-71m-rebuild.do
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502104901/http://www.langlandsandbell.com/the-house-of-osama-bin-laden-video.html to http://www.langlandsandbell.com/the-house-of-osama-bin-laden-video.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725205356/http://www.fiafnet.org/pdf/uk/04FIAF66.pdf to http://www.fiafnet.org/pdf/uk/04FIAF66.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725205456/http://www.fiafnet.org/pdf/uk/fiaf73.pdf to http://www.fiafnet.org/pdf/uk/fiaf73.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130023342/http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/269/see-the-film-the_enchanted_circle to http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/269/see-the-film-the_enchanted_circle
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222091426/http://www.movinghistory.ac.uk/archives/iw/collection.html to http://www.movinghistory.ac.uk/archives/iw/collection.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imperial War Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805232715/http://www.artfund.org/queenandcountry/Queen_and_Country.html to http://www.artfund.org/queenandcountry/Queen_and_Country.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be moved to 'Imperial War Museums' to reflect the organisation's own usage on its website and the first words of the WP article? JezGrove (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Headhitter (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if a template, like that for CWGC, could be created for LOTFWW, to facilitate entries in Wikipedia
Existing info on wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Lives_of_WWI_ID
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4601
Keith H99 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to template created in December 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lives_of_WWI
Keith H99 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does this article simultaneously cover the Imperial War Museum in London and the IWM group? Shouldn't they be separate articles? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Headhitter (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)