Talk:Dia Bridgehampton/GA2: Difference between revisions
initial remarks: holding |
Found5dollar (talk | contribs) →General comments: reply |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Half of the history section can be read before the museum is mentioned. Most of the first paragraph of the article is a history of the building. The section #Historic display is again about the history of the building (this section is somewhat more excusable, but again goes into too much detail. These issues will need to be address before the review moves forward. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 09:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
Half of the history section can be read before the museum is mentioned. Most of the first paragraph of the article is a history of the building. The section #Historic display is again about the history of the building (this section is somewhat more excusable, but again goes into too much detail. These issues will need to be address before the review moves forward. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 09:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:{{Ping|Rollinginhisgrave}} Thanks for starting the review. Dia Bridgehampton, while ostensibly an art museum, is really a permanent, site-specific, art installation. This building, and it's history are part of the art. This article is about both. The "museum" only includes 10 works but also includes the building, as things like the red newel post, and exterior lighting are only understandable in the context of the greater history of the building. Dividing the article into two, one about the building and one about the museum, does not seem practical as there is so much overlap between them. I have changed the "history" section to "building history" in hopes of calming some of your fears, but Dia Bridgehampton is firstly a building, and secondly a museum.--[[User:Found5dollar|Found5dollar]] ([[User talk:Found5dollar|talk]]) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:19, 30 July 2024
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
General comments
I've read through this article a few times, and in a lot of places it is not clear whether this is an article about a museum, or the building a museum is in.
Half of the history section can be read before the museum is mentioned. Most of the first paragraph of the article is a history of the building. The section #Historic display is again about the history of the building (this section is somewhat more excusable, but again goes into too much detail. These issues will need to be address before the review moves forward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rollinginhisgrave: Thanks for starting the review. Dia Bridgehampton, while ostensibly an art museum, is really a permanent, site-specific, art installation. This building, and it's history are part of the art. This article is about both. The "museum" only includes 10 works but also includes the building, as things like the red newel post, and exterior lighting are only understandable in the context of the greater history of the building. Dividing the article into two, one about the building and one about the museum, does not seem practical as there is so much overlap between them. I have changed the "history" section to "building history" in hopes of calming some of your fears, but Dia Bridgehampton is firstly a building, and secondly a museum.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)