Jump to content

Talk:Dia Bridgehampton/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I need to have a think about this. Your comments have helped, although I would like to see how you are describing it reflected in the lede to better see the coherence. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: I reworked the lead a little bit to bring the museum info forward and the building info into the second paragraph. I also pulled the info about the newel post and lights into a new "Building interventions" section. Found5dollar (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm liking this a lot more. Some notes, "small interventions in the architecture" is vague and almost euphemistic, and "historic memorabilia display" is ambiguous whether it's referring to the building or Flavin.
What I want is the lede to be as explicit as you have been, saying "the building is itself an exhibit" or equivalent to establish the building as part of the subject (although verifiably). Essentially, the argument against splitting has to be made in the lede. Because looking at the article right now, I'd be in favour of a split. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: I cleaned up the two terms you questioned and updated the lead some more making it clear that the renovations to the building were made under Flavin's explicit direction. This is all already sourced in the article in the "Dia and Dan Flavin" section. Found5dollar (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put a lot of thought into this, and I know what needs to be done.
1) Split up the history: The article is about the museum. Including all the information about the history of the building goes beyond background and gives the impression that the article subject is the building, and the museum is just one occupant. The building history should be put later in the article to reflect the "building as an exhibit" status, preferably above the #Building interventions section.
2) Integrate much information on building interventions into the building history. The section can be renamed "The building" or equivalent rather than building history. This ties back the discussion of the building to the museum, ensuring that the article does not go off topic. For instance, in a section on the building as a church, integrate the contemporary display of the cross.
3) The lede should reflect the split of history. I am unsure that the changes that were made in trying to address this so far have improved the article, I think the conceptual split can be better addressed, but this is for after the body is written.
Thankyou for your patience. I know this has been a pain, but I hope when this is done, we can agree it was worth it. I want to improve this article, that's why I chose to review it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: I have 1) reordered and changed the division of the history section to divide it into information about the building, Dia, and the museum. 2) reincorporated information about the building interventions into the history section and 3) did a bit of work to the lead so the paragraphs are about the museum, then the building, then Dia. This article only has 3 paragraphs (plus a bit in the lead) about the building before it became a museum, while the rest of the article is about the construction, displays, and exhibitions of the institute. That seems within reason to me. I disagree about folding information about the historic display into the building section as this display is referenced repeatedly as an exhibit in the museum. Found5dollar (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the page after your changes, I still felt it failed WP:GACR #3. Given how I felt about it, I didn't want to just make you rewrite it again if I wasn't going to be happy with it, and I don't want to fail this article. Instead, I've spent a while trying to rewrite the page to better achieve this, in my sandbox. Diffs.

I tried a few times, this is the only one I didn't delete. I feel okay about it. I didn't do all the needed changes, but I've tried to do the structural changes and gesture towards the things that need to be different. Reading the version there, I think the issue of subject identity is resolved, alleviating the concerns with #3.

I really really hope this helps. If you disagree with the changes, let me know. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: thank you for the work you put into thinking about this article and considering changes. Many of the suggestions in your sandbox I can get behind but the big one I disagree with is moving the building history to the end of the article. You need to read those three paragraphs for context to understand many other sections. You need ot read it before "Focus on Long Island artist" since that section talks about how artists are using and referencing the history of the building. You need to read it before you read about the renovations of the building because that section references parts of the building that only make sense in the context of the buildings history. Having two separate history sections, one for the museum one for the building, seems confusing to me. I'd suggest just moving the building history section back into the general "History" section under its own subheadding, or just move these three paragraphs to a section called "The building" earlier in the article.
Sure, let's move it up. Maybe after Dan Flavin Art Institute, and move the Temporary artists section to the end? I would like the historic display to be grouped with discussion of the building as a preference.
I still think having two history sections works, given one is a history of the subject, and the other is a history of a closely related topic, and mixing them together would just confuse what the subject is. If you disagree then I can ask for a second opinion on this and we can (finally) get into the review proper. I don't mind the suggestion to move it into a "The building" section. Would you merge the historic displays in there as well or keep them separate? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry, but I just got very busy at work. Please give me an additional day or two to respond to this.
Found5dollar (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not enforcing 7 days by any means. The review hasn't even really started. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: Thank you so much for the time to get work stuff in order. I have made changes to the article based on your suggestions. I moved "the building" and "historic Display" sections to after "Dan Flavin Art Institute" and also made many of the smaller tweaks you suggested in your version of the article. This now puts the museum and the main exhibit, the Flavin works, before a discussion of the building. Please let me know if this feels more in line with what you think works. Found5dollar (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a copyedit which I'll get you to review here.

Prose and content

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
  • under the direction of Dan Flavin Definitely introduce who Dan is here
  • Dia stopped calling the museum the "Dan Flavin Art Institute" and began calling it "Dia Bridgehampton". if this is just a rename, it can be a lot shorter. Otherwise, the sentence should be clear that it is not merely a rename, independent of later sentences.
  • Introduce the Dia Art Foundation in the lede.

Inbox picture does not need a caption.

Completed these three notes.Found5dollar (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • purchased the building Introduce the building (i.e. don't just call it "the building" straight off the bat) given it's the first time this is being used in the body.
  • to house a long-term exhibition of Dan Flavin's work Introduce Dan here as well, even just an extended gloss.
  • He was drawn to the building for -> He chose the building for ?
  • renovations began in earnest -> major renovations began... Colloquial
  • Gluckman's first commission to create a full-scale art gallery was for the Dia Center for the Arts on West 22nd Street, now Dia Chelsea. Probably a bit too much detail, given their relationship was already established. Feel free to push back, as with everything.
    • I think it is important to include both connections but i reduced it down to "Gluckman had connections to both Flavin and Dia, having previously worked with Flavin on a 1977 installation for the Dia founders as well as designing the Dia Center for the Arts on West 22nd Street, now Dia Chelsea."--Found5dollar (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newel post Could you gloss this?
  • On the exterior gutters and electrical cables were removed while doors, paneling, and shingles were restored. this sentence needs a few more commas and maybe splitting up.
    • Changed these few sentences to " Gutters and external electrical cables were removed. Exterior doors, paneling, and shingles were restored and a blue light was installed under the lower cornice." --Found5dollar (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the design of the first floor exterior of the building This can be heavily revised down to let the quote speak for itself.
  • referencing a new set of double doors which duplicate the look of the original firehouse doors that allowed the engines in and out. clarify tenses in this sentence
  • and was named after James Schaeufele, the site supervisor of the renovation project. Surely it was named after Dan Flavin? Maybe it's dedicated to James?
    • Flavin usually named his sculptures after people close to him, so he named the museum building after James. I have made this clearer with, "The museum opened on June 18, 1983 as the Dan Flavin Art Institute.[7][3] Flavin dedicated and named the building after James Schaeufele, the site supervisor of the renovation project, as he often titled his work after people close to him.[3][5]"--Found5dollar (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the museum was created to house a permanent display of Flavin's work in the building's vestibule and second floor, an artist's archive, a printmaking workshop area, and a rotating exhibition space. This sentence needs locations of items clarified.
  • Without any physical changes to the structure occurring, Dia switched from calling the museum the "Dan Flavin Art Institute" this stuff needs to be in a new section, as it's too far removed from "Opening"
  • Now, the "Dan Flavin Art Institute" is considered to only be the Flavin works inside Dia Bridgehampton is this grammatical?
  • nine works in fluorescent light made from?
    • I believe "in" is the proper term. you would say "nine paintings in oil" or "nine sculptures in marble" not "nine paintings made from oil" or "nine sculptures made from marble". Either way, I switched it "nine fluorescent light works"--Found5dollar (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Flavin Art Institute

[edit]

The building

[edit]

Historic display

[edit]
  • which was removed and preserved here redundant
    • I have left this as a cornerstone, by definition, is a part of the building. With out saying it was removed people may be confused that they laid the cornerstone in this room which would not make architectural sense.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cornerstone was laid by Tyre Lodge No. 91. F. & A. M., a chapter of Prince Hall Freemasonry, also known as the African American Freemasonry. This chapter is still active today and named after Prince Hall, an American abolitionist, leader in the free black community in Boston, and active in the back-to-Africa movement. too much detail, and off-topic. All should be deleted.
    • The fact that this building was a black church and renovated and used by a black community on Long Island I think is very important. The cornerstone, along with the neon cross, is one of the most important works on display in this gallery so some background on it does not seem out of place. I have reduced down the size of this section but think it is important to include.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your reduction, although Tyre Lodge No. 91. F. & A. M., should still be removed. It is sufficient to say it was laid by a foundation of Prince Hall Freemasonry without the serial numbers. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completed
Found5dollar (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary exhibitions

[edit]

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • [5] Green tickY
  • [10] Green tickY
  • [15] Green tickY
  • [20] Green tickY
  • [25] Green tickY
  • [30] Green tickY
  • [35] Green tickY
  • [40] Green tickY
  • [45] Green tickY

Other

[edit]
  • Images: all good, almost all by you so no issues Green tickY
  • NPOV Green tickY
  • Broadness: I would like some reception to the museum or notable exhibits. Magenta clockclock
Any luck on material on reception? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: I just added a new section titled "Reception" where I summarized and quoted 3 reviews I found of the museum. One from it's opening, one from 2012, and one from 2016. Let me know if you are looking for more, less, or something different.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really happy with this. Wouldn't mind it being shortened to "Art Institute to avoid repetition, but that's not standing in the way of it passing, which I will do now. Thanks for bearing with me for this long review, hope you agree that the article has been improved over the course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV/OR: Some close paraphrasing with this brochure, but almost entirely on descriptions which are very difficult to reword. Overall okay. Earwig 56.1% Green tickY.
  • Stable Green tickY

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dia_Bridgehampton/GA2&oldid=1241592700"