Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/Archive 1

Comment

I made a few additions to this. I'm still fairly new at this, so if I did anything you disagree with, please tell me why on my talk page. In any case, I used the Museum of Modern Art article as a rough basis for the direction towards which this article needs to be expanded. L Glidewell 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Collection

The article states 5,600 items, then 6,000. Their web site says 2,345 objects, or just under 5,000 if you include artist's books. I thought I'd ask for a source for those other numbers before changing this. L Glidewell 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the numbers on the MCA page [1]. Definitely only 2,345 objects (plus 2,500 books, as you said). Don't know where 5K or 6K come from. Good catch. - AKeen 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Edits made to the page on December 21 may be in violation of copyright as they appear to be taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by James R. Grossman, Ann Durkin Keating, and Janice L. Reiff (Chicago University Press, 2004), p.554. Shsilver 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the section that cites EOC, or another one? In any case, feel free to tag or delete the sentences that are copied verbatim. I'll be happy to try and replace them with original prose and proper citations. Best, L Glidewell 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly the introductory paragraph and the part about the new location, although there also appears to be some in the section on Past Exhibitions. If you go to the EOC website, you can see how much of the Wiki article is taken word for word from that source. Shsilver 23:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. I'll try to fix the copyright issues. Good catch. Edit: okay, I did my best. I see now, too, where the 5,600 works thing came from. L Glidewell 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nominee

Hello. Subject seems like a great potential Good Article but as you say it is short and I think could represent the museum better. Would it be possible to mention contemporary or postmodern art, say from the collection and recent exhibits? I am not an art historian but think the examples sound like those of a modern art museum, in other words, getting old now if art ever does. I would mention Illinois where you have "Chicago, USA." Is there any chance you could include free or fair use images of art and artists? Please feel free to remove the hold tag if you have already addressed these or similar points. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just offering a second opinion here... its coverage seems insufficiently broad to me. Nothing on the history of the museum (except in the lead; there should be a corresponding section in the article proper) and almost nothing on its architecture despite the fact that the architecture looks rather interesting from the picture. The prose is also substandard, with too many one and two paragraph sentences. Personally I would fail the article but will wait till the expiration of the hold period on Friday. MLilburne 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed. It meets the six things looked for in a good article, though it is slightly lacking in the third requirement, that is its broadness in coverage. Though it's not a fatal flaw, and could be improved upon. Keep up the good work. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you mention this

can you mention the exhibit where the actors make out i just think that would give the museum a different view how the museum is and what about the video rooms they could help on how to describe the museum also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.149.116 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisting

I will delist the article as GA in five days unless the following gaping concerns are addressed:

• Expansion of the lead per WP:LEAD
• Expansion of the history section
• Sourcing of unsourced statements

I'm not sure how this got to be GA in the first place, but it sure doesn't deserve to be. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section is too short.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most main issues are covered only superficially. The "History" section is far too short, and "Collection" consists almost entirely of a short list.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the article about 25%. Let me know if more is needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I believe the article is now good enough to be kept as a GA. Lampman (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)