Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/GA3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago GA Review[edit]

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I intend to review this article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Inital comments[edit]

  • At the moment I am only concentrating on "problems", the rest will be covered in the Overall summary.
  • I don't consider this article to be fully up to GA-standard, so I will be putting this article On hold; if it can be brought up to GA standard in a reasonable time, then this review will proceed, otherwise the article will not be listed durring this review.
  • History -
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 237 East Ontario or 237 East Ontario Street? History uses the former and New structure the latter.
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 does provide WP:verification of some of the points in the first paragraph, but not any verification of claims about Jan van der Marck.
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 states that the museum opened in 1967 and the article states that it was founded in 1967. Opening dates and founding dates may not be the same; and are rather vague, it should be possible to date the date of opening (not merely the year).
  • The newly added article says "last week" with a November 3 publication date. Thus it was either October or November. I put Fall 1967.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) The first paragraph provides inadequate information about the old Ontario building. Ref 3, invoked in the second paragraph, states that in 1991 the new museum was "Chicago's first new museum in 65 years", yet at the time, the first musuem was only 24 years old.
  • Some of that missing information appears later in New structure (why?).
  • The first paragraph in New structure has nothing to do with the New Structure, so it aught to be in History along with the Ontario site information. Similarly, the first half of the second paragraph, i.e. "In 1996, the MCA acquired its current site at 220 East Chicago Avenue which was the site of a former National Guard Armory between Lake Michigan and Michigan Avenue from 1907 until it was demolished in 1993 to make way for the MCA.[32]" fits better into History. Pyrotec (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) The second paragraph is somewhat incomplete. The first part discusses donations, the second part discusses six finalists and the final part discusses "controversy". What is there is referenced, but this is an incomplete history.
  • What notable events do you feel are missing from the article. I think most major exhibits are included. The location history is included. What obvious things are missing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have no intention of discussing the whole of the article here. What was the second paragraph is now the third paragraph. Read my words, above: "The second paragraph is somewhat incomplete. The first part discusses donations, the second part discusses six finalists and the final part discusses controversy. What is there is referenced, but this is an incomplete history." Movement of some of the text from New structure has certainly helped fill in some of the "gaps", but this paragraph still needs a good copyedit. If you are going to create a new building, then donations, review of six finalists and "controversy" is not sufficient to acheive that aim, i.e. there must have been some kind of design competition, how can you chose the six finalists otherwise? The "controversy" part comes last but it mentions 23 semi-finalists, so it must have happened before the selection of six finalists. The first step after donations, is the issue of a statement of requirements and requests for designs (by some deadline) - you don't have any of that, but if you bring the "controversy" before the six semi-finalists, at least you have verifiable statements of the selection of 23 semi-finalists, followed by the selection of six finalists and it is in proper date-sequence. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are not satisfied with the history one way to make it more complete would be to move the past exhibitions into the history section. Other than that, I do no feel there is much else missing about the history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that many of the non-compliances that were raised in the GA Reassessment in August 2009 have not been addressed. This article is based mainly on information given in the Chicago MCA's own website and in-line newspaper articles found through web-searches. Additional sources were identified by SilkTork but have not been used. Much of the process of designing and building the new building in the third paragraph have been glossed over, presummably because the detail is not in the newspapers; and the third paragraph is still in need of a good copyedit. If you are going to create a new building, then donations, review of six finalists and "controversy" is not sufficient to acheive that aim, i.e. there must have been some kind of design competition or design statement, how can you chose the six finalists otherwise? The "controversy" part comes last but it mentions 23 semi-finalists, so it must have happened before the selection of six finalists. The first step after donations, is the issue of a statement of requirements for designs (by some deadline) - you don't have any of that, but if you bring the "controversy" before the six semi-finalists, at least you have verifiable statements of the selection of 23 semi-finalists, followed by the selection of six finalists and it is in proper date-sequence. Moving past exhibitions into the history section is only rearranging the existing material and unfortunately does not address the problems identified in the GA reassessment. Pyrotec (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Its better, but it could still do with a copyedt. Nevertheless, I'm going to pass the article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph appears to be compliant.
  • Operation -  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a lumping together of three blocks of information into two paragraphs:
  • The first block of the first paragraph is about the board of trustees and oficers. Its verifiable, but its incomplete.
  • Read the line below. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The rest of the first paragraph is a random collection of facts. Operation as tax-exempt non-profit organization, which aught to be at the start of this paragraph, before the board of trustees. Income, funding and contributions, which needs expanding and its own paragraph.
  • The second paragraph could do with a good copy edit. It is referenced, but it is a strange mix of opening hours, with days and seasons apparently randomly introduced. What for instance is a "weekly happy hour"?
  • Exhibitions -
    • Past -
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 25 appears to be a broken link.
  • The final statement in the first paragraph on the one-person shows is unreferenced.
  • New structure -
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The first paragraph is about the Ontario Street building it needs to be moved to History.
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The first half of the second paragraph is about the exising (pre-museum) use of the Chicago Avenue site and aught to be moved to History.
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) A copy edit of the remainder of this section is needed. The second half of the second paragraph is about the new building, but then discusses the sculpture garden, with no real introduction of the relationship between the building and the garden; and the final paragraph then disusses the theater but the presence of a theater is not mentioned in the second paragraph.
  • I think there is some confusion. I believe the auditorium and the theater are the same place. I will reword. I do not understand the complaint about the garden. The current opening sentence discusses a building, theater and garden. The following sentences add details to this intro sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll accept it. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) This section is still rather "thin"; and again, the main problem is that many of the non-compliances that were raised in the GA Reassessment in August 2009 have not been addressed. This article is based mainly on information given in the Chicago MCA's own website and in-line newspaper articles found through web-searches. Additional sources were identified by SilkTork but have not been used. The various newspapers "hint" about controversy over the new building and provide "hints" about the internal structure; but none of this appears in the article.
  • I had not noticed the sources offered by SilkTork (talk · contribs) because they came in his delisting notice at/after the conclusion of discussion and note during the discussion. I will have a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Collection -
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC). The first paragraph seems to suggest from the numbers quoted that the collection has shrunk 7,000 in 1996 to 2,345 items + 2,500 books today.
  • OK, let's forget about this "problem". Pyrotec (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 36 is a merely a repeat of the sentence that it attached to. This sentence appears to be "padding", especially as the same information is provided and expanded in the following section; and the whole of the infomation in this paragraph comes from ref 37.
  • Information provided in the book should be quoted directly, or if no information is being taken directly from the book, it should either be removed or moved to a "Futher reading" section.
  • It's now ref 38 - this one: "A narrative of the museum's collection can be found in Life Death Love Hate Pleasure Pain: Selected Works from the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago by Elizabeth Smith.[38]". Pyrotec (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) This is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points. Its on the "thin" side, but its just about acceptable. You could for instance briefly mention the architect, the building and tightly summarise some of the comments about it.

Pyrotec (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The article is much improved and I'm now happy to award GA-status. Thanks for your efforts in attending to my comments above. Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)