Talk:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

So where is it right now?

 * The Stedelijk had been temporarily relocated from its old Museumplein venue to the Oosterdokskade 3–5, just east of the Central Station.

Has or had? The website for the museum seems to suggest it's not opening at Museumplein till 2009. So is the first para of this article wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.242.163 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues
After reading the article I was under the impression that a large part of the article was written by someone from the museum. Looks like my assumption was correct. Parts are not very neutral and not source. This article needs some attention. Multichill (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, barely any of the sections have proper references, and several sections should be rewritten into a more encyclopedic style. – Editør (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the unsourced sections and I've added some clean-up templates. – Editør (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kimmelman, Michael (23 December 2012). "Why Is This Museum Shaped Like a Tub?". The New York Times. "Offhand I can’t recall seeing a more ridiculous looking building than the new Stedelijk Museum" -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hawthorne, Christopher (28 September 2012). "Review: Stedelijk Museum's 'bathtub' awash in awkwardness". Los Angeles Times. "It's getting from the city outside to the artwork that's the problem, since it requires not only confronting the antiseptic enormity of the bathtub but also the awkward manner in which the new wing relates to the Museumplein."

Eas295 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cornell University Student Project
We are seniors at Cornell University who will be editing this article for personal interest as well as for a class assignment. Our class is called "Online Communities". You can see our course page here.

Group Members: Emily Schuit Ian de Vries Santiago Cruz

Emily is a design student who has visited the museum and has personal photos to share. She also did a case study about the logo design. Ian is from Amsterdam, speaks Dutch, and has spent some time at the Stedelijk growing up nearby. Santiago has the technical expertise, having done a similar project before.

Specifically, we plan on targeting the following areas: -Walking through the history of the logo design -Detailing the current logo design, including who designed it and their intent, as well as recognition the new design has received -Discussing the overall branding strategy used -Adding images of the museum (primary sources from personal photographs: exterior, interior, and collateral) -Provide a more neutral point of view -Talk about the controversy surrounding the 'bathtub'

Initial list of references: http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/news-items/new-visual-identity-by-mevis-en-van-deursen http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/arts/design/amsterdams-new-stedelijk-museum.html?_r=0 (many more recent sources than the ones currently listed)

+Cornell University library resources

Division of labor: We plan on working on the majority of these tasks together. Emily- Speak more to logo and brand components Ian- Cultural perspective Santiago- Technical contributions

Eas295 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Feedback from Prof. Leshed
 * Seems like you have chosen an interesting project and that you are a well-rounded team to take on the challenge - good job!
 * A few suggestions:
 * Be careful with using the Stedelijk website as a source - referencing the website that is closely related to the article content might be considered promotional. Instead use secondary sources. The NY Times article is more appropriate.
 * Look up the Dutch website and see if its content is more elaborate than the English article. If so, you could translate some of the Dutch article into the English article, especially given that Ian speaks Dutch.
 * Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Niteshgoyalwiki (talk)
 * Move the Template for Educational Assignment to the top of the Talk Page. Done. Good Job.
 * You need to make sure that your content about the logo design & branding does not seem promotional. Do you have non museum sources?
 * How about some of the biggest works at the museum. For example Van Gogh museum is mostly gogh's works - what does the municipal museum have? I remember that it had some of the national treasury arts stuff - you might want to describe the biggest draws at the museum.
 * Is their collection a part of the Google museum archival collection? If yes - would be great to discuss what is in there, with some external links.
 * There does not seem to be much foot-fall at the article by other folks. You might want to engage other wikipedians on the talk page or comment back on their text saying how you plan to address that. Fee free to talk to them at their talk page.
 * This is a long shot but you might want to to contact people who are interested in Dutch museum collections - if there is an online community outside wikipedia to help you find more interesting content
 * Remember to nominate your article to did you know by the end of class on October 1. Niteshgoyalwiki (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We are looking to add a section about the criticism received after the new wing was built. We also want to detail more about the new layout of the museum. Additionally, we are in the process of taking content from the Dutch page and fitting it into the content for this page.

Eas295 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling all Wikipedians: please help us!
Hey guys, as Emily said in the most recent section, we're a group of students who are touching up this page as part of a project to help us get a better grasp on interpersonal dynamics in online communities. Over the next week we'll be adding in new research, sources, and all kinds of fun stuff to make this article as informative and neutral as possible. However, we need your help. In order to make sure we do things right, we would love it if you guys critiqued our edits and discuss them with us on this talk page if you disagree or think we can improve somehow. Please don't just delete or redact our changes without giving us an explanation why you did that.

We're looking forward to working together to improve this article!

IchiniSanti (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A suggestion at the outset: since this article is already long, its highest priority is sourcing. I'd aim to source every sentence added or modified in the article (i.e., add a footnote to each sentence) and then expand from there. As mentioned above, WP prefers independent, secondary, and reliable sources, and if you feel a source may not meet those categories, try discussing it here first before spending the time working it into the article. It feels somewhat deflating to have your hard work edited by others, especially as US schools associate edits with shame, but we're all here to build an encyclopedia. I think you'll find a balance by first adding references and asking where unsure instead of adding tomes of info, which "impresses" professors but rarely helps the article for posterity. czar  ♔  13:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I generally agree with the above, citation overkill can be an issue, so please let's not take "add a footnote to each sentence" ad literam. Same way as a good article can be compact rather than long, referencing quality (i.e. reliability of sources) is more important than the number of citations. If a paragraph relies on a single source, than one reference for it should be sufficient. -- ELEKHHT 14:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the advice! I talked it over with my group and we'll make sourcing one of our top priorities (within reason, of course).  I'm sure our professor wouldn't be upset if we focused on that over adding volumes of new text.  We hope you'll give us further feedback as we keep adding to this talk page/article. --IchiniSanti (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is good to note here that the consensuses on citing sources on the Dutch and English Wikipedia are different. Many Dutch Wikipedians advocate minimal sourcing, where only controversial statements should be sourced, whereas English Wikipedians try to source all facts in an article (while avoiding citation overkill). I do not wish to discuss the policies here, just stating their difference. – Editør (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that tagging an article for an educational project does not give you ownership of the article. Wikipedians are free to change the article as they see fit. When they give unsufficient explanation, you can always ask them about it or discuss the changes on this talk page. If you want to experiment, use the Sandbox or make a Help:Userspace draft. Success with the project, I'm looking forward to see your contributions. – Editør (talk)

Visual Identity
We want to add a section about the logo and branding design and how it has evolved. Let us know what you think. We also plan on adding some images of the logo and other printed materials once we upload our primary sourced photographs to the Commons:

Eas295 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added bq for legibility. Consider using list-defined refs (putting the citations within the References section, makes the wikitext easier to read). Footnotes go on the other side of the punctuation. I moved ref4 above, for example. I recommend paring this section down to its essentials (has details that aren't really pertinent to the subject of the article) and including it within a greater section about the museum's 2012 reopening and any renovations that happened alongside. czar  ♔  19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also (re: images), taking original photos of copyrighted material isn't enough for clearance to Commons. For example, if I take a picture of a book, the book's art is still copyrighted, and I would need a fair use rationale, which is very specific and limited (see WP:NFCC) unless cleared by the copyright owner under a free license (CC BY-SA or freer). czar  ♔  19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider whether the details about the visual identity are relevant in an encyclopedic article about the museum in general. If you think they are too specific, you can also consider adding parts of it to the articles of the designers instead.
 * The articles should be sourced differently, this article is not published by the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, so the reference should look something like this:
 * Katie Treggiden, "Wim crouwel in conversation", Confessions of a design geek, 2011. Retrieved on 2013-09-29.
 * And finally, note that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so your paragraph doesn't need to be perfect before it can be added to the article. Succes with your project. – Editør (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the feedback. I am working on stripping this section down as you suggested, and I plan on adding it to the section about the reopening. As a graphic designer, I guess the visual identity component is way more applicable to me than the average encyclopedia reader. I am working on formatting citations, so I really appreciate the help! I began adding and editing directly on the article page, and will continue to do so today. I am still wondering about my personal images. I used some photos of the brochures handed out at the museum in another project. I am going to consult with someone over at the Commons to see what they think, but of course I understand what you're saying regarding copyright issues.

Eas295 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to share that I reached out to the museum to see if I can get permission to use one or two of my personal photos. If I hear back from them, I will upload them to the Commons and see where they would best fit into this article.

Eas295 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Course assignment
Hi Cornell folks working on this article. It might be a good idea to start putting in content and editing the article, because the assignment is due on Thursday. Please remember to be logged in to Wikipedia when making edits, so that the teaching staff evaluating your work can attribute the contributions to you. LeshedInstructor (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. We have been working on a Word doc to further compile and refine information (I am increasingly getting more comfortable posting on the article page). We plan on adding more and more content to the article page today. I have already begun editing the existing content, mainly for neutrality purposes. I am having a hard time adding citations to this existing content though, and I cannot seem to track down the user who originally contributed this. Additionally, I have checked out some books from the Fine Arts library and retrieved some content from them. Eas295 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can't source the existing content and it has no obvious citation, common practice is to either delete it or to move it to the talk page for discussion. (This is why I prefer to source every sentence, otherwise if someone adds a sentence to the middle of a paragraph, it would seem to be covered by the footnote at the end of the paragraph.) And a suggestion: try editing in short bursts so that others can read your changes ("diffs") in the page history neatly. When paragraphs are moved around, there's no easy way to tell how much content was altered from its original position. czar  ♔  22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Again, thank you SO much for this feedback; you are extremely helpful! I will make sure to make small edits from here on out. Most of the major changes are from this very insightful book that I am reading. In this case, is it OK to just put one citation at the end of the paragraph? I am also trying to find sources for some of the pre-existing content, which is easier said than done. Eas295 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's totally okay to footnote only at the end of a paragraph, but as I mentioned, it creates some issues later down the line. Yes, sourcing the unsourced is a great pain, but only imagine how non-editors unfamiliar with how WP works would try to do the same thing, if they even try. Your work cleaning up this article will be read by more people in a day than all of your college papers will (most likely) be read ever. It's worth the time to make it your best work. czar  ♔  00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Review the Added/Edited Content on Article Page
I would greatly appreciate it if all interested parties would take a look at the information I have been adding on the article page, specifically in the History section. I have checked out an awesome book from the Cornell University Fine Arts library which gives extensive information about the Stedelijk's history. Specifically, I would love some feedback on organization. As I add more content, I am worried that the History section, mainly the 20th century section, is becoming longwinded and could be better segmented. Any suggestions? Also, I am a bit confused how to reference the same source multiple times throughout. I tried coding with, but it is still showing up as an error. I will continue adding and revising content, so stay tuned and comment away! Thanks a bunch. Eas295 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have the book, I can't verify the details, but I can offer stylistic advice. With the "ref name", the issue is the slash. Only add the slash after the ref's first usage. For example, I'm about to move your repeated ref to the bottom of the page (list-defined refs) and then only use the slash format to reference it throughout the article. Also use en dashes instead of hyphens for ranges (esp. page ranges). czar  ♔  21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the footnotes go outside the closing punctuation (I mentioned this above with an example). czar  ♔  21:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you have many refs coming from that page range, you may want to try using sfn short footnotes to name the specific pages for the reference without creating a lot of work. If you want to give it a go, I'll help clean up if you have trouble. czar  ♔  21:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

From the article:

Looks like an error was made here when moving stuff around—you can check what happened in the page history and try to correct it czar  ♔  22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! I will work on cleaning this up. Eas295 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a broken link (labeled [2]) in the second paragraph of the 21st Century section. I couldn't fix it because I'm not sure which source it's referencing; can the person who posted that please fix your syntax? --IchiniSanti (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was catching myself up on Mike Kelley's coroner's report and happened upon this WSJ article on Stedelijk and the artist. Maybe worth adding, if you have time. czar ♔  00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Czar--Thank you for sharing this article on Mike Kelley. I am adding a bit to the article about the cost of the renovation, but I don't think I'll mention the show of Kelley's work just because I think it's getting too specific. Is there anything else from this article in the WSJ that you think is applicable? Eas295 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I am still having trouble with referencing the same source multiple times. I am trying to reference the WSJ article twice. I tried to mimic what you did with the book reference that I included, but I am obviously missing something... Eas295 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the WSJ article. Take a look at my diff in the page history to see exactly how it works. It doesn't necessarily need anything more than a short mention, if even that. (Also remember that you can sign your comment on the same line so it appears at the end of your comment instead of on a new line.) → czar  ♔  21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission to Use Photos
I just heard back from Michiel Nijhoff who is head of library and collection registration over at the Stedelijk. He has given me permission to use a personal photo that I took in October 2012 of the interior, specifically of the enclosed escalator leading upward from the ground floor of the new wing. According to the Stedelijk website, the escalator running between the lower level and the second floor is enclosed to allow visitors to "enjoy exhibitions without distractions".

The current article page already has some nice photos of the exterior, but nothing from inside. Because showing photos of actual artwork or pieces would infringe on copyright, I think the best thing is to simply show this piece of interior architecture. I am uploading it to the Commons now, and will post shortly with an appropriate caption.

Eas295 (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please forward the permission with a link to the file per the instructions at OTRS (which documents the approval for posterity). If the works included are in the public domain or of extremely minimal use, their inclusion is fine. Post a link to the image and I can help you with its copyright. czar  ♔  14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the photo. I just uploaded it to the Commons. Do you think I should brighten it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eas295 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This caption is a bit long, but the one in the article is fine. I know it takes a lot of effort to get things approved and uploaded, but I'm not sure this image contributes enough to the article. The escalator isn't mentioned in the article other than in the caption and it seems relatively peripheral to the article's scope. If the escalator is as important as other elevators in the museum and there is little secondary source coverage on it, I would consider leaving it out. (Though it can stay here on the talk page for posterity, of course.) Also I'm not sure that you need outside permission for photos like this that don't contain copyrighted elements. czar  ♔  23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional content from Stedelijk Collection Reflections
I am going to add in this additional information from the Stedelijk Collection Reflections book (I know I have used this source a bunch--is that alright?)

Information about renovations of interior: In 1934, Baard turned the loggia above the museum's main entrance into an exhibition space and had several galleries repainted in light colors. When Röell took over in 1936, he changed the gallery wall coverings and doorways. Röell had the polychrome staircase whitewashed in 1938. and replaced the yellow glass in the skylight with lime-washed glass.

Conflict & Criticism: De Wilde was faced with generational conflicts, protest movements, and a call for democratization. Critics accused De Wilde of paying too much heed to the international, 'capitalist' gallery establishment. The Beroepsvereniging van Beeldend Kunstenaars (BBK), a left-wing artists' association, demanded local artist and the general public participation in museum policymaking. On 16 January 1970, the BBK disrupted a Claes Oldenburg exhibition's opening and occupied the museum. The protestors were evicted by the police the next day. Years later, the left-wing liberal councillor E. van Antwerpen proposed a resolution that condemned De Wilde's purchasing and collecting policy, which did not pass.

Any suggestions on reorganization? The history sections are getting really dense... Eas295 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See diff for changes. This info may be a little too specific. It would be fine to say that he "upgraded the galleries" if it covers what we need to know. "Democratization" means a whole lot of things—specify. Also avoid starting each sentence with "in year comma" and vary the sentence structure. It's fine to keep using this source as long as it's reliable and footnoted in the article. Good work czar  ♔  23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Museum Staff
As I mentioned, I have been talking with Michiel Nijhoff, who is the head of library & collection registration over at the Stedelijk. He is "looking forward to the updated page". In addition to approval on a photo, I have asked him to check out the work we have been doing on this article and to provide us with some feedback. I will keep you updated, but if you have any specific questions that you want me to direct to him, please let me know. I really appreciate the help on this! Hopefully we can move this article up from C-class! Eas295 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
A few tips from what I've observed in recent edits:
 * Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~) after your talk page comments (usually on the same line)
 * Put footnotes outside punctuation.[here]
 * Section headings (and article titles, for that matter) are not in title case unless proper nouns (see my recent edit)
 * Avoid In 199X, constructions and vary sentence structure
 * Omit needless words (where possible)

Suggestions: czar ♔  21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Turn director list into prose, add to history, if even relevant to have at all
 * Add visitor information into an "Overview" section before the history to describe the museum and its basic features
 * Expand the lead/lede (first paragraphs) to serve as an overview (different kind of overview) of the entire article. It should paraphrase the main aspects of the article and doesn't need to be sourced if the corresponding info in the article is sourced.
 * Merge Visual identity section into other sections (old identity into the history, if necessary to have at all, and new identity into the remodeling section)
 * Once the article is fully polished, would you be interested in taking it to good article status?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119130050/http://stedelijk.nl/en/organization/mission to http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/organization/mission
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007152619/http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/Ndtrc/Stedelijk%20Museum to http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/Ndtrc/Stedelijk%20Museum
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813042229/http://www.iamsterdam.com/sitecore/content/Data/Uitbureau/Locations/Museumplein?sc_lang=en-GB to http://www.iamsterdam.com/sitecore/content/Data/Uitbureau/Locations/Museumplein?sc_lang=en-GB
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525104145/http://stedelijk.nl/en/news/news-items/overview/the-temporary-stedelijk-2 to http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/news/news-items/overview/the-temporary-stedelijk-2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323010900/http://stedelijk.nl/en/organization/directors to http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/organization/directors
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324678604578340322829104276

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)