Talk:Getty Villa/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I will begin review shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To be VERY honest little work has been accomplished on this article since it was nominated one month ago. I am actualy very surprised the editor has relisted so quickly with nearly no work done. So...I will assume it is so a hold can be placed with notes to guide the editor towards a better artcle. I cannot assume the editor feels the artcile is ready. I see only a few additional references added and whatever copy edit was done to the lede did not improve it enough to pass GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the GA1 review, we added the collection section, additional sources, and expanded the lead paragraph in response to it. Racepacket (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass GA, the article must meet the following criteria.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * B. MoS compliance:


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * A. References to sources:


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:


 * C. No original research:
 * C. No original research:


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * A. Major aspects:


 * B. Focused:
 * B. Focused:


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fair representation without bias:


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars, etc:


 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes:


 * First things first! The biggest problem I see with this article to pass GA is scope. It simply does not have a broad enough coverage of the subject. The prose also needs work.

One way to start this off is to suggest another article that is similar to this one to compare that is already at GA status. What better article is there to use for this than the Getty Center. Please take note that, while not a particularly long article it still has the scope needed to cover the subject adequately! Also take special note of the Lede. Notice how it summarizes the entire article from top to bottum in a concise summary?
 * I nominated Getty Center and brought it to GA. Remember that the three articles - J. Paul Getty Museum and its two campus articles Getty Center and Getty Villa together describe a single art institution. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your point is, other than to perhaps, let me know you have made a nomination before. You nominated this page and it is not ready. Are you telling me you stand with what is written and are not prepared to make any further changes, or are you explaining a route you wish to take in aproaching the copy editing and overall approach to this article as we work forward?

Now lets look at the sections within the Getty Center article. What this does is discuss the facilities different areas in seperated sections. This allows the article to have broad coverage in a very organic and natural manner without any need for filler or fluff sections, like "Admissions". There may be a need to mention it's a free museum where tickets must be aquired in advance but certainly not is a seperate section.

Problems to correct
I have decided that the best way to aproach the problems is to handle what stands out the most to my eyes instead of from top to bottum as some are far more important than others.


 * Dating = In the infobox (which we call a "disinfobox" when it adds more confusion than it does clarity. Disinfoboxes) there is a date for establishment that is not found in the article at all. This may be a problem of misdating or simply not placed in the body of the artcile by mistake. At any rate, there does appear to be a problem with establishing the exact date the museum began, was closed and then reopened. This must be cleared up in the prose as well as the box, depending.
 * I have added 1954 to the first paragraph of the history. Racepacket (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Location = While you have two seperate inline citations for the location, # 9 and # 10, these are not sufficient to establish your claim that the Museum resides in Pacific Palisades. #9 is simply an "illustrative" reference. Meaning, it does not substantiate the claim being made but only shows that the Getty Villa itself claims it is in Malibu. The other reference, #10, is a reliable source, as it is indeed a notable publication with editorial oversight however, it does not prove the claim in any way other than saying: "Much to the consternation of residents, the Palisades' most famous destination, the Getty Villa, is typically described as being in Malibu."  It does substantiate the claim that it bugs the residence there, but it does not substantiate the claim itself. It is actualy making a claim the artcile itself doesn't bother to either explain or reference in anyway. So...as a reference to the irritation of residence it is out of place without a good solid reference to the claim "...the site is in the City of Los Angeles in the community of Pacific Palisades." This just adds to the "Disinfobox". This leads to the next problem, Original Research No original research which the last statement/claim and the next statement constitute. The text coninues on to say: "One story is that, when the Villa first opened in 1974, the Pacific Palisades Post Office felt it could not handle the additional mail, and the Malibu Post Office assumed the responsibility instead, leading to the Villa's mailing address's being in Malibu rather than in Los Angeles." You have no reference to back up the claim, which will undoubtedly be disputed.
 * The City of Los Angeles city limits are not in dispute nor is the fact that the museum is located in that city. Building permits, zoning, police, and fire protection are all from the City of Los Angeles. Some people (including copy-editors preparing printed materials for the Museum) describe the museum as being in Malibu as a description of its general location, but not in a precise legal sense.  Postal addresses (based on Post Office service area boundaries) frequently do not reflect the boundaries of incorporated villages, towns and cities.  To evaluate the truth of the statement regarding 1974, one would inquire as to which post office handled the mail to the Getty mansion and its neighbors prior to the conversion from pure residence to art institution and whether the assigned post office changed after the 1974 opening. We could certainly work to either better source the anecdote or to delete it. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are simply incorrect. We don't reference out of what IS in dispute. We reference out what may be in dispute. Is the museum in California? Yes. Is that likely to be disputed? No. Is the location of the museum in the city of Los Angeles? Yes. Is that Likely to be disputed? Yes, out of simple confusion and lack of understanding by the average reader. All inclusion of postal information must be referenced. A varifiable source must be used. No information in a wikipedia article can be assumed to be general knowledge that is in fact "specific" in nature.
 * There are cases where border disputes exist (for example the border between Georgia and Tennessee) but those disputes become well-documented and result in litigation. Here, both Malibu and Los Angeles agree that the property is within the Los Angeles city limits. Although undisputed, some people wish to call the location of the museum "Malibu" as a description without regard to the city limits. Should we take out the whole paragraph or just the sentence about 1974? Racepacket (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean "real world" disputes. I mean information on a Wikipedia article that is likely to be questioned by the average reader (for example someone who doesn't live in the area and simply is not aware of these facts) you always add a reference. Since the statement has no reference from a reliable published source it is original research and the entire statement must be removed or cited.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the sentence.

Images
Images must comply with Manual of Style guidlines Images and Image use policy: ''Each image has a corresponding description page. On that page, one should document the source, author and copyright status of the image, using one of the pre-defined image copyright tags. It is important to add both descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) and technical (equipment, software, etc.) information at the time of creating the page, which will be useful and highly informative to later editors and readers.''

''Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
 * 1) Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
 * 2) Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.''


 * Description: The subject of the image
 * Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from
 * Date: Date the image was created. The more exact, the better
 * Location: Where the image was created. The more exact the better
 * Author: The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder
 * Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag
 * Other versions of this file: Directs users to derivatives of the image if they exist on Wikipedia


 * Inner peristyle.jpg = While this image has been released to the public domain, it is missing all information. This must be fixed before it can pass GA review for Manual of Style Guidelines or it's use dicontinued in the article.
 * When I looked, it met the GA criteria 6(a) of "tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" and the placement and use of the photo seems to me to comply with GA criteria 1(b), "manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Is the concern that there are three sculptures in the photo?


 * Please see above information. The image does not meet Manual of Style guidelines for either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and is in danger of deletion. Not having a description will get the image deleted. It does not meet minimal standards for use, let alone GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that all copyright concerns are fully addressed. I have left a note on User talk:Neilwiththedeal and requested that he add additional information, but that is beyond the scope of our GA work here. Racepacket (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have made the decision of both MoS and scope criteria GA. I have provided the guidline from MoS and yet you continue to aregu what is and what is not required. Thank you for your time. I am now concluding the review as fail.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have provided the license for one photo and an estimated date for the other. GA criteria 1(b) is " it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]" with footnote 2 stating, " Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is 'not' required for good articles."  GA criteria 6(a) states, "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content."  So, as long as it has a copyright license or fair use rationale, it can pass GA.  I did my best to date the photo as being taken after 1973.  I think that your grievance is with the person that uploaded the photo, who has not responded to my request.


 * Lansdowne Herakles.JPG = is missing the date and most importantly the license. It is currently eligible for speedy deletion.
 * Good catch. I left a message on User talk:Spikebrennan and requested that he add a licensing template. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I supplied the license. Thanks for the heads up, Racepacket.  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Mos, multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left. For this particular article, this may be necessary. - Done

Image gallery and infobox
While the use of image galleries within a Visual Arts article can be appropriate, the over use of a particular subject can over weight the article. With an article of nearly any size, it is unnecessary to repeat a subject more than once at any angle. Infoboxes on VA articles ' ''may be a conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis. Templates at the bottom of the page are usually preferable to those at the side, where they may make it difficult to incorporate proper illustration of a VA article. If so, they are likely to be removed.'' '

At his point the infobox seems to be something of a problem in both image use (repetitive) and information. It may be something an article of this size need not use as may also be the case with the image gallery. The header for the gallery should not be titled "Photographs" as this has nothing to do with the museum itself and adds nothing to the context of the gallery's use. At this point is becomes a question of decoration. Aside from the repetitive images, most of these images can be more appropriatly used in the body of the article.
 * I am flexible on the issue as it is a judgment call, but I left the remaining photos that were not placed in the right and left stagger in the gallery, pending further guidance. Racepacket (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope
Reference #3B appears to support the statement it is linked to however, the information was condenced far too much. This is another oppurtunity to expand the section and article by speaking in less general terms. By expanding, we can also fix the prose that contains the run on sentence: "The Greek, Roman, and Etruscan antiquities are arranged by themes, e.g., Gods and Goddesses, Dionysos and the Theater, and Stories of the Trojan War, housed within Roman-inspired architecture and surrounded by Roman-style gardens" - fixed

There are many oppurtunities to expand the scope of the article. More detail about the original hacienda, known as the Ranch House would be nice. His neighbor there was William Randolf Hearst. Did he have any influence on the collection of art? What about some information about Getty's leaving the US, never to actualy return and even see the Villa, or that after his death he was buried at the site. The fact that there is such confusion about the location could well be covered with proper sourcing and may well be able to help expand the article if properly dealt with. - added burial behind house.

Prose

 * "Reopened on January 28, 2006, the Getty Villa holds Greek and Roman sculptures, some of which were housed in the interim at the Getty Center and the large part in storage for the duration of the Villa's closure."? - reworded

Thank you again for devoting time to this review in order to improve the article. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your further comments. I am continuing to make changes at User:Racepacket/Getty and will move the results to the article space when I finish. Racepacket (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am failing the article for GA at this time
A good faith attempt was made to review the article but have found the editor noncompliant at this time on issues that range from copyright (which garnered the editor an indeff ban recently lifted) to MoS guidelines. With the amount of work needed along with the difficulties the editor has shown, I believe I have no further choice except to fail the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)