Talk:Indianapolis Museum of Art/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More within 24 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "is located on a 152 acre campus." Can you give some local geographical reference in the intro as to where it is located in Indianapolis, what neighborhood, south of lake etc.
 * Added "...on the near northwest area outside downtown Indianapolis." There's no easy way to describe the location. Another option could be, "...adjacent to Crown Hill Cemetery." Though I don't know if that serves the purpose of locating it for the non-Indianapolis native. Either is fine. LoriLee (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the part which begins "In addition to its collections, the museum consists of 100 Acres: The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art and Nature Park; Oldfields" should come after paragraph 2 and 3.
 * I can see that. I think though, that it may serve even better between paragraphs 2 and 3. (Especially the segue from the collection to "in addition to its collections." This is what I did for now. Do you agree? Let me know.LoriLee (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "widely recognized as innovative in its development of online tools supporting visitor engagement, institutional transparency.."  A bit vague, what is meant by "development of online tools supporting visitor engagement" maps, website or what?  What does visitor engagement mean exactly I'm not sure what you mean.
 * Changed to say, "...as innovative in its development of open source technologies, ". This should be a more clear statement, anyway. LoriLee (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I created a city map for Indianapolis would you accept a city locator pin map in the infobox?
 * I'd be thrilled to! I was actually hoping to eventually find someone to make an Indy map, anyway. So that's great. LoriLee (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * History
 * "The Art Association's first exhibition contained 453 artworks from 137 artists" what year was this?
 * "with loans coming from New York City." a little awkward, "with investment from New York City" perhaps
 * I added the date (the reference is from the Chronicle, which was already used to reference that sentence.) I removed the point about NYC, just to keep the sentence from becoming overcomplicated.LoriLee (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Architecture
 * "This expansion resulted in a more coherent and chronological flow in the museum " What? Please rephrase
 * Rephrased to, "The expansion aimed to provide clearer chronological continuity and a more coherent flow as visitors moved from one gallery to the next." which is more in line with the quote from the source, which is, "In addition to increasing exhibition space to more than 80,000 square feet, the new Hulman and renovated Krannert and Clowes Pavilions will: ...Provide continuous traffic patterns through the galleries for clearer chronological and cultural continuity. In the new galleries, visitors will walk through a history of Western art without having to backtrack through galleries." LoriLee (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to rename this section Construction or renovation as it is entirely about construction not about architectural analysis as I'd expected to read. OK I've taken the liberty to add a section under this name and have merged the garden grounds section into one piece on Architecture. If you disagree with this edit feel free to revert, although it seems to be the best thing to do.
 * I was wary at first but I think it's growing on me. LoriLee (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "A series of installations along the White River by artist Mary Miss will be the next project commissioned by the IMA as part of 100 Acres". Do we have a date for this?
 * The date was at the end of the paragraph, but I moved it to the beginning where it makes more sense, and also added a more recent press release (June 2011.) LoriLee (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Should W.J. Holliday and Kurt Pantzer be wikilinked/ created?♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Collections
 * Added links. Don't have the resources on hand to create the stubs. Is the linking sufficient for now?LoriLee (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, I will look into those articles myself if the sourcing is available.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC) "After undergoing a sustainability initiative that reduced natural gas consumption by 48 percent and electricity consumption by 19 percent, the IMA became the first fine art museum to be named an Energy Star partner in 2008. " A series of facts there, needs to be sourced.
 * Awards
 * Done. It's the hard copy source; unfortunately don't have the digitized version for now. LoriLee (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Visual Thinking Strategies curriculum" What is this? Can you elaborate? Should it be wikilinked with an article?
 * Education
 * Updated to read, "Viewfinders, an art-viewing program that serves 9,000 local students a year, uses Visual Thinking Strategy, an arts-based curriculum that teaches critical thinking, communication skills, and visual literacy." The lack of a VTS article is now on my radar. LoriLee (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC) "In February 2010, the IMA decided to allow for more temperature and humidity fluctuation than is currently recommended by typical environmental control standards." You've lost me in that opening sentence. You need to reword it to assert what you are referring to, you mean the heating inside the museum buildings?
 * Conservation
 * Updated to read, "In February 2010, the IMA shifted from current environmental control standards within their exhibition spaces, allowing temperature and humidity fluctuation of a few degrees on either side of the suggested standard." I'm hoping this is better, and not more convoluted. Though I thin it's clearer in stating where and the extent of said "fluctuations." LoriLee (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks. Generally look fine, but there appears to be a distinct lack of book sources and reliance on newspapers. If you have plans on taking this further to FA you should definitely scout for a wider range and type of sources in google books and try to replace some of them and balance the types of sources used.
 * Sources
 * Thanks so much for the review. I'll start looking through each of these tomorrow. LoriLee (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first point regarding the location of the museum might be the only thing that may need to be swapped, based on the options available. Otherwise I think I have everything else covered, barring any continued confusion based on my edits. Let me know if there's anything else I can do, and once again, thanks for the review! LoriLee (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lori. I've added a map as requested. I will create another one for central downtown Indianapolis later which is a better scale. I am taking a short break right now, I will formally checklist this when I return.

I'll readdress this in about 12 hours after a good night's sleep, hope that's OK with you.♦  Dr. Blofeld  20:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As touched upon, above, based on sources, I'm not sure this is quite potential FA just yet, as I feel it is lacking a breadth of book sources which are available about this museum. Some of the sources are also questionable, if you could replace one or two of the blog sources with more reputable ones this would help and also if the sources are accessible online add more url links to them. As for as I can see though those few blog sources are based on interviews rather than original research but could be better sources. If you were to dramatically increase the breadth of sources and some of the sections were expanded like the history and the prose polished off even more then with a bit of work it might be an FA candidate. But the article is most certainly a respectable GA quality one when measured against the GA criteria. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks so much! Yes, I agree on all points regarding the sources. The nature of the process behind writing this article led it to be very heavy on newspaper and other third party sources. I'm afraid that nearly all book sources available will be published by the IMA itself, in the form of catalogues, etc., and we attempted to go out of our way to not use IMA-published sources in order to remain neutral (with the exception of the history book, Every Way Possible, which was unavoidable.) This actually served as a case study for other cultural institutions who wish to be involved in the improvement of their article while remaining neutral and avoiding COI. As such, we likely won't attempt FA, at least for some time. It's exciting to officially be a GA. Thanks so much for your time & help! LoriLee (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd dispute that nearly all book sources available will be published by the IMA itself . There appear to be a number of sources like this and this available, independent book publications. However, I think you are probably right about the wealth of material about the museum is only likely available in depth in IMA sources such as a catalogues.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)