User talk:Mmarley3/sandbox

Mountmaker Article Review
Meghan, I enjoyed reading your article on mountmakers. This is certainly a cultural institution role that is often overlooked, but is very important in protecting collections. This is a role with plenty of overlap potential from consultations with collections care individuals to exhibition designers. Perhaps future edits could include more about this overlap. Also, mounts would have to vary based on the institution (i.e. paintings vs. historical artifacts) and I think further edits could also include how education factors into specializations within the field.

By Wikipedia standards, I would say your article is a good Start class example. It contains a decent amount of content, and defines the role of mountmaker in a way that offers a general overview. The Featured article criteria explains that the use of images and extensive coverage of the topic would be required to move up the ranking, but this is definitely a great starting point for future users to contribute to. The one suggestion I have is to be careful of the language you use. In one line you write "however, the object should be the subject of the viewer's attention, not the mount" which almost sounds subjective and opinion-based. Wikipedia articles must be free of all opinion (easier said than done!) and I believe lines such as this one may get tagged by other users as too subjective.

Overall, I think you did a great job at defining a role that changes from one institution to another, and providing the foundation for a much needed Wikipedia article. AngelKelley (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Angel, thank you for your great feedback! I appreciate the advice about language use on Wikipedia; I had not thought of words like 'however' as being subjective, but I will try to watch out for it in the future. Also, I tried to add a picture, but was worried about copyright issues. I will try to fix this in the future. Mmarley3 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mountmaker Article Review
Meghan, I thought you wrote a great article on object mountmakers. Mountmaker isn't generally a role I would have thought of when listing those involved with object care, but it is definitely a critical one. As Angel mentioned, the mountmaker can have a lot of overlap with other roles working with collections, and I wonder if this can be touched on a little more in future drafts.

Your article draft is off to a great start; you've added a good amount of content in discussing the role and responsibilities of a mountmaker to give readers a comprehensive overview of the position - especially when the range of responsibilities can vary depending on the institution. The only other suggestion I would make would be to add photographs or other media, possibly of different mounts and how they might be used in storage or on display. Stangs531 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 7:06, 1 March 2014 EST

Sarah, thank you for your great feedback about my article! I was worried about the content originally because I have little experience with mounts, so I am pleased that you enjoyed it. I had not thought about discussing the overlap with other collections roles, but I think it is a great idea. I will definitely have to explore it in the future. I also like you suggestion of adding photos/media of different types of mounts; I think it would very useful in explaining the diversity and uniqueness of mounts. Thanks again! Mmarley3 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)