Talk:Frick Collection/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks like another interesting article nominated by Epicgenius and, cursorily, looks very close to meeting the criteria to be a good article already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is of significant length, with 7,530 words of readable prose.
• The lead looks of an appropriate length at 332 words and three paragraphs.
• 95.4% of authorship is by Epicgenius.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Suggest replacing of "to" on in "Commentary of the museum".
   • Suggest rewording "Frick had acquired some objects from the J. P. Morgan estate specifically to complement the visual art in his collection. Some of the acquisitions from Morgan's estate" to avoid the repeat of "estate".
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
   • The following are duplicate links: Charles Carstairs, Duccio, François Boucher, J. P. Morgan, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Joseph Duveen and Portrait of Comtesse d'Haussonville

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • All potentially controversial and other key material is cited.
   • The reference section is split into a list of citations and sources. In the main, the books are in the sources but there are exceptions (e.g. Sanger & Garrett 2001). Suggest moving all together for consistency.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • References seem credible, and a good mix between contemporary and more recent sources.
   • Spot check confirms Dobrzynski 1998, Grant 1921, Maeder 1999 and Passy 2017 are relevant and discuss the topic.
   • WP:AGF for the offline sources.

   it contains no original research;

   • There is no evidence of OR.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 20.6% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The highest similarity is with an article in the New Yorker which includes an attributed direct quote in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • As well as the collection, the article extensively covers its location; this is also covered in the article Henry Clay Frick House. There was a suggestion to merge the articles in 2012 but this was rejected. Both have expanded since, but much of the text is very similar. Earwig reports a 88.2% similarity between the articles. Many sentences have very close phrasing. For example, compare "The museum announced plans to construct an annex at 5–9 East 70th Street,[69] which would have included offices, lab space, lecture halls, and an auditorium.[95]" with "The museum planned to construct an annex at 5–9 East 70th Street,[42] which would have included offices, lab space, lecture halls, and an auditorium.[292]" Suggest reviewing the two articles to see what is actually pertinent to this and what is appropriate for the other.
   • There is more content on the collection in the sources that could be used instead. For example, my reading of Skrabec 2014 p.210 is that it has a whole paragraph on a donation from the McKinley Memorial and Presidential Library. Instead, the page is used as a source for two facts on the building.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is at the limits of summary style, but I feel the topic deserves the amount of detail given.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The text seems generally clear and neutral, balancing different points of view.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The infobox image has a relevant CC license.
   • Turner Mortlake Terrace Early Summer Morning 1826.jpg is lacking a PD rationale.
   • The license for the images Joseph Mallord William Turner - Cologne, the Arrival of a Packet Boat in the Evening - c 1826 - The Frick Collection.jpg and Hendrik van der Burgh - Drinkers before the Fireplace - c 1660 - The Frick Collection.jpg seem to be CC rather than PD like the rest of the gallery images. Suggest replacing them.
   • The other images have appropriate PD or CC licenses.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The infobox image is of the outside of the building. Given the existence of the article of the building, suggest, if there is an option to illustrate the collection instead, this should be used. For example, if there a panorama of the inside of the building this could be used to illustrate the collection.
   • There is an excellent gallery of works, including three that previously were Featured pictures.

@Epicgenius: Thank you for all your work on architecture of New York. This is another extensively researched piece and worthy of being a GA. Please take a look at my comments and suggestions, and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review @Simongraham. Here are my responses:

• Suggest replacing of "to" on in "Commentary of the museum". - I have done this.
• Suggest rewording "Frick had acquired some objects from the J. P. Morgan estate specifically to complement the visual art in his collection. Some of the acquisitions from Morgan's estate" to avoid the repeat of "estate". - I have done this.
• The following are duplicate links: Charles Carstairs, Duccio, François Boucher, J. P. Morgan, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Joseph Duveen and Portrait of Comtesse d'Haussonville - I have eliminated the duplicate links in the prose.

• Excellent work.

• The reference section is split into a list of citations and sources. In the main, the books are in the sources but there are exceptions (e.g. Sanger & Garrett 2001). Suggest moving all together for consistency. - I have moved all books down to the sources section. This was done to avoid having to use {{rp}} for every book, while also keeping other citation templates as footnoted references (which appear in the "Citations" section) per WP:CITEVAR.

• I completely understand your rationale, and no practice seems ideal. For consistency, I have expanded and moved White, Willensky & Leadon 2010.

• As well as the collection, the article extensively covers its location; this is also covered in the article Henry Clay Frick House. - The situation is fairly complex. For the Frick House, there is a lot of history about the house itself prior to its takeover by the museum. I've trimmed whatever redundancies I could (this article used to talk about the house and the museum at length, but I removed more details last month). However, the concept of the museum itself dates to the house's construction, and there necessarily has to be some shared background information.
• There is more content on the collection in the sources that could be used instead. - I looked through most of the sources and included pertinent details from these sources. I had to exclude some of the minutiae to comply with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

• Excellent work. It is a tricky balance.

• For example, my reading of Skrabec 2014 p.210 is that it has a whole paragraph on a donation from the McKinley Memorial and Presidential Library. - The issue with adding that particular detail is that Frick made a donation to the McKinley Memorial and Presidential Library. The library didn't donate to Frick; it was the other way around.

• Good to exclude then. The other information you have added is helpful.

• Turner Mortlake Terrace Early Summer Morning 1826.jpg is lacking a PD rationale. - I have added a rationale.
• The license for the images Joseph Mallord William Turner - Cologne, the Arrival of a Packet Boat in the Evening - c 1826 - The Frick Collection.jpg and Hendrik van der Burgh - Drinkers before the Fireplace - c 1660 - The Frick Collection.jpg seem to be CC rather than PD - The CC license for both is a Template:cc-zero license, which is a public domain license.

• Seems reasonable.

• The infobox image is of the outside of the building. - I've swapped it with an interior picture.

• Hopefully that also encourages people to read the article on the building too.

– Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work, Epicgenius. Thank you for your considered responses. I feel your rationales are reasonable. , all the changes seem to be done. I believe that this article now meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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.