![]() | Victoria and Albert Museum was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 5, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This museum is partially free. They have featured exhibits and you have to pay for those.
Hi,
I'm afraid this article is so badly written, copyvio, and structurally a disaster.
This needs a complete overhaul.
Any suggestions for improvement, before I rip it apart and start again?
Cheers Muj -- ImperialCollegeGrad 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is a disaster, am working on it now.
It's a good example of how not to let people get carried away with adding anything and over emphasising.
I will be pursueing a program of mass prose killing and reduction therapy on this article.
Any contributions?
The V&A has signed up to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art event being planned for February 2009. If you want to help, please sign up on the page! AndrewRT( Talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense for the overviews of each of the separate collections of the Museum to be in separate articles so that the main article isn't quite so long? This seems quite sensible and would resolve the issue of the article being over length. Mabalu ( talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Gryffindor recently removed all but one category from this article, and put Category:Victoria and Albert Museum into the categories that he removed. This seems to make category navigation a little cryptic - if a reader starts at Category:Grade I listed buildings in London, then instead of getting this V&A article as one entry in a list of articles, they get given a link to an eleven-article V&A category, one of which is the V&A, nine of which are not listed buildings, and one of which (the Museum of Childhood) is a Grade II listed building.
Is there any consensus for this sort of category nesting, or am I just misunderstanding how categories are supposed to work? I'm not sure I see what we gain from moving all of the article's categories onto the V&A category. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is so badly structured, in 2007 I worked on this page and got it to an acceptable level with personal and wiki common photos and descriptions added back then.
Since then, due to over-zealous additions this page has become ridiculously cumbersome, over-bloated and doesn't read well at all.
I'm going to perform a culling, removing tonnes of images, and condensing the verbage.
If there are any objections, or rather suggestions, I'd be more than happy to air them out here prior to the massacre which is planned.
Thanks Muj
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions:
This article is impressive in its comprehensiveness and research, and I particularly enjoy its wide range of images. This one was a pleasure to read.
However, it does have some serious issues that will need to be addressed before it can meet the Good Article criterion. A few that I particularly noticed:
For these reasons, I'm not listing this one for Good Article status at this time. I note from the article's history that you don't seem to have worked on this yourself yet; while "drive-by nominations" are fine, I'd encourage you to check for issues like these in the future before nominating more. (You can see the criteria here.) Hopefully these comments will give you a good start to revising this one, and I hope you'll renominate once they've been addressed. Good luck! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are the person who wrote them, or the person who read them, and then put the article up for GA, please read the comments carefully. Most of the problems are to do with punctuation. Someone who has written these sentences plainly knows how to speak good English, but does not have a clear understanding of what constitutes a sentence, in written English.
I could fix the problem easily. I have fixed a few not-so-obvious problems. The reason that I am going to the trouble of putting these sentences here, is so that the editor who wrote them and the editor who read it and proposed a GA can learn from the problems here, and not fall into the same pattern in writing other articles.
Example 13. is analysed, broken into its component parts and has an explanation of why each part is a separate sentence.
I've got down as far as the head Collections. This is an indication of the work that needs doing before this goes up for GA again. The subject is well covered. The chief problem is very, very poor sentence construction.
Amandajm (
talk)
06:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just looked into the history of this article in sone detail.
This article could and ought to be a GA article. But it's going to need serious editing. By "serious", I don't mean chopping chunks out of it. I mean reading what is written in a serious and critical manner.
This is harder work than simply cruising around removing superfluous links, formatting the numbers and tweaking the dashes. It means taking an academic approach to it.
Amandajm ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Victoria and Albert Museum. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londonschool.com/po/experience-london/museums/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-2810When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we have to book for Thursday 24th museum? 86.137.139.24 ( talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Gosh this is a long article. Surely we should move 'Collections' to a separate page? Similarly, the Gallery section could move into the Collections page, with each image in its respective section, for example Paintings or Sculptures. Sadgrove ( talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm adding in a small section to point towards the National Art Library, which is a department of the museum. I've also worked with another editor to do some edits in the National Art Library page, so it is more informative than it used to be! AGuidry57 ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Victoria and Albert Museum was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 5, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This museum is partially free. They have featured exhibits and you have to pay for those.
Hi,
I'm afraid this article is so badly written, copyvio, and structurally a disaster.
This needs a complete overhaul.
Any suggestions for improvement, before I rip it apart and start again?
Cheers Muj -- ImperialCollegeGrad 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is a disaster, am working on it now.
It's a good example of how not to let people get carried away with adding anything and over emphasising.
I will be pursueing a program of mass prose killing and reduction therapy on this article.
Any contributions?
The V&A has signed up to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art event being planned for February 2009. If you want to help, please sign up on the page! AndrewRT( Talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense for the overviews of each of the separate collections of the Museum to be in separate articles so that the main article isn't quite so long? This seems quite sensible and would resolve the issue of the article being over length. Mabalu ( talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Gryffindor recently removed all but one category from this article, and put Category:Victoria and Albert Museum into the categories that he removed. This seems to make category navigation a little cryptic - if a reader starts at Category:Grade I listed buildings in London, then instead of getting this V&A article as one entry in a list of articles, they get given a link to an eleven-article V&A category, one of which is the V&A, nine of which are not listed buildings, and one of which (the Museum of Childhood) is a Grade II listed building.
Is there any consensus for this sort of category nesting, or am I just misunderstanding how categories are supposed to work? I'm not sure I see what we gain from moving all of the article's categories onto the V&A category. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is so badly structured, in 2007 I worked on this page and got it to an acceptable level with personal and wiki common photos and descriptions added back then.
Since then, due to over-zealous additions this page has become ridiculously cumbersome, over-bloated and doesn't read well at all.
I'm going to perform a culling, removing tonnes of images, and condensing the verbage.
If there are any objections, or rather suggestions, I'd be more than happy to air them out here prior to the massacre which is planned.
Thanks Muj
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions:
This article is impressive in its comprehensiveness and research, and I particularly enjoy its wide range of images. This one was a pleasure to read.
However, it does have some serious issues that will need to be addressed before it can meet the Good Article criterion. A few that I particularly noticed:
For these reasons, I'm not listing this one for Good Article status at this time. I note from the article's history that you don't seem to have worked on this yourself yet; while "drive-by nominations" are fine, I'd encourage you to check for issues like these in the future before nominating more. (You can see the criteria here.) Hopefully these comments will give you a good start to revising this one, and I hope you'll renominate once they've been addressed. Good luck! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are the person who wrote them, or the person who read them, and then put the article up for GA, please read the comments carefully. Most of the problems are to do with punctuation. Someone who has written these sentences plainly knows how to speak good English, but does not have a clear understanding of what constitutes a sentence, in written English.
I could fix the problem easily. I have fixed a few not-so-obvious problems. The reason that I am going to the trouble of putting these sentences here, is so that the editor who wrote them and the editor who read it and proposed a GA can learn from the problems here, and not fall into the same pattern in writing other articles.
Example 13. is analysed, broken into its component parts and has an explanation of why each part is a separate sentence.
I've got down as far as the head Collections. This is an indication of the work that needs doing before this goes up for GA again. The subject is well covered. The chief problem is very, very poor sentence construction.
Amandajm (
talk)
06:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have just looked into the history of this article in sone detail.
This article could and ought to be a GA article. But it's going to need serious editing. By "serious", I don't mean chopping chunks out of it. I mean reading what is written in a serious and critical manner.
This is harder work than simply cruising around removing superfluous links, formatting the numbers and tweaking the dashes. It means taking an academic approach to it.
Amandajm ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Victoria and Albert Museum. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.londonschool.com/po/experience-london/museums/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-2810When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Victoria and Albert 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we have to book for Thursday 24th museum? 86.137.139.24 ( talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Gosh this is a long article. Surely we should move 'Collections' to a separate page? Similarly, the Gallery section could move into the Collections page, with each image in its respective section, for example Paintings or Sculptures. Sadgrove ( talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm adding in a small section to point towards the National Art Library, which is a department of the museum. I've also worked with another editor to do some edits in the National Art Library page, so it is more informative than it used to be! AGuidry57 ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)