Talk:Photograph conservator

Review for Roodru1

This Wikipedia article is well researched on particularly on the “early photograph formats” and the “definition of photography”. It is important to properly define the term photography so as for readers to understand the scope of this discussion. The portion on “early format photography” provides a general understanding on the development of photography. I felt that this article can be improved on by having more elaboration on the work carried out by the conservator i.e. techniques or perhaps some conservation projects examples.

I would think that in a typical museum setting, conservators are categorized into 4 main areas of specialization – objects, textiles, paper and paintings. Therefore the conservator of photographs role could be a subcategory under paper conservator.

This role could be more prominent in a museum solely collecting photography works such as American Museum of Photography.

By Joanne Lim

Becca, I think taking on Photographic Conservation is a big but rewarding challenge. I like that you went into the history of photography. I’m wondering if that section should be renamed “History of Photography” or reworked so that it focuses on the different types of photographs and negatives that were produced rather than the historical step. I also would have loved to see more citations. I feel as though this is information that you already know, but it would be good to add citations for the benefit of others. The second to last sentence under “Definition of Photography” has “photographs will quickly being” is grammatically incorrect. I really do think you did a good job. It’s a great start and it sounds like we will be working on this throughout the semester, so can’t wait to see where it goes! MelanieCDeer (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Becca, Your outline for Photograph Conservator looks great! I like how you've organized the topic clearly and concisely. The addition of the section on well-known photograph conservation projects is a great idea to make the topic more interesting and relevant to the general public. The list of Professional Societies will also be a good source of contextual links and further information on the topic. Are you just putting all your references in the external links section for now and then moving them later? If your footnotes relate to specific information from those sources where you've put them now, I would put all those under references. I think the external links section is just for further information or reading that is not specifically referenced in a certain section of the text. I could be wrong though... Overall, you did a really awesome job with the outline. It is clear, easy to understand, and comprehensive without being too long. I look forward to reading the final product! Crystal Stein (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Becca,

I think your outline looks great as well. It is well organized and covers the core aspects of conservation. I organized my topic in a similar manner, so that I would be sure to touch on the major aspects of conservation. Your reference list is good, it shows a variety of sources. Minor typo in line 2 of the references: "plan" and "Museums" have an extra "a" at the end of them. If you haven't come across Conserve-O-Grams from the NPS, I find them to be helpful. They get pretty specific, if that is something you are looking for. They may be a good external link, at the very least, for people that wish to do additional, more in-depth research. I think your outline covers most aspects of a photograph conservator that an average Wikipedia reader would want to read about. I imagine most people will look this position up if they come across it from a researching a museum or if they are interested in it as a career. It looks like it will make for a good overview without getting too overly-technical and I think that would be exactly what a reader is looking for. I think you did a good job following Wikipedia guidelines, but I think Crystal is right, that external links are usually for extra reading and are not the references? Overall, great job, I think you have a very strong beginning to your article and I look forward to reading the final version! Hstevensmartin (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)