This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The section on the controversy was extremely poor. It went in to great detail on how some people have compared it it other infamous acts of censorship and how people have stopped supporting NPG or protested it but the only thing it actually told us about the controversy was that William Anthony Donohue said it was anti-catholic and the author said it wasn't anti-religion or sacrilegious (and it was part of a video which was part of a wider exhibit). It didn't actually tell us at all what was controversial. I've since added a section from the WAD article which clarifies a scene containing a crucifix covered with ants appears to have been what was controversial. If there is more, it would be helpful to add since it's a bit silly to talk about how controversial something is without explaining what was actually controversial. (To be fair, I understand how when someone is intimately familiar with a controversy or whatever they can not notice they are leaving out vital details which leave a reader scratching their head having read lots of not so important stuff.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)