Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1

Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. See comments below. Geometry guy 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums,,, , --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary procedure would be to renominate this at WP:GAC following a delisting. However, since this article just passed at WP:GAR during GA Sweeps 3 months ago, I am requesting consideration of the delisting here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I was the one who passed this article in the sweeps review. After my initial review, the editor put in a good amount of work on it, and I believed at the time that it was enough to pass. Undoubtedly it still has some problems though. The lead is too short, and there are some instances of poor language ("1000's" instead of "thousands", "originally" twice in same sentence). At the same time, I think the reviewer this time is a bit too strict. There is no absolute rule against the use of pullet points, and the architecture of the building is covered in the "New structure" section, as well as in the "History" section (though this raises the question of repetition). I think I will recuse myself from this one, and see what others say. Lampman (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the "1000's" & "originally" points you make. I do not mean to use this as a PR, but had the time to fix them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also reformated as a two paragraph WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is very short for a subject that seems pretty, well, major, and I'm not sure it meets WP:WIAGA 3(a). The prose also needs some serious work here. Sentences such as "The Museum of Contemporary Art was founded in 1967 in its former location at 237 East Ontario" make no sense; the location at which the museum was first located cannot be called a "former" location when it is first mentioned. Sentences such as "The first director of the MCA was Jan van der Marck" are too choppy, and I'm sure more could be said :) "The new four-story 220,000 square feet (20,000 m2) building" should be "The new four-story, 220,000-square foot (20,000 m2) building"; "1000's" is still in the lead; the "Collection" section includes two consecutive sentences starting with "The collection includes"... etc. These are just examples; the whole article needs an overhaul for (a) prose and (b) comprehensiveness. (Not FA comprehensiveness, but still.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had thought I had fixed the thousands and originally points, but there was a problem with my browser. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I do not believe much encyclopedic content is missing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "thousand's" is still wrong (that means "thousand is"). It should be "thousands". Lampman (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lead at the moment is a confusing tangle. The notability issues (for the first paragraph) are: it is contemporary art museum in Chicago; it opened in 1967; it is now one of the world's largest (citation needed) contemporary arts venues; it has thousands of objects in its collection; it has hosted many notable (citation needed) debut exhibitions. The two addresses, reasons for the change, funding drive etc., would better be discussed together in a second paragraph. The final paragraph could then give more information and examples about the collection and exhibitions. Here, though, the last sentence is a garden path: it might suggest either that Koons attended his own exhibition a record number of times or that he has a record number of exhibitions at the museum. That clearly wasn't the intention! Geometry guy 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed these issues.


 * Comment I do believe that single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided as far as possible in GA articles. The "free Tuesday" info seems like advertising anyway. The bullet list I see as one of the few cases where this might be permissible. As for the comprehensiveness; once more I'll recuse myself. Lampman (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded that point into a full paragraph that I hope you consider encyclopedic. If not the entire thing can be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to me if there is a breadth issue that needs to be addressed, someone should point out what it is.  I think I can: the article lacks information on the operation of the museum.  What organization oversees it?  Does it have a board of trustees?  How many people work there?  How is it funded?  What is its operating budget?  Are there any recent budgetary or operational concerns because of the economy?  The whole topic of operations is a main aspect which has several major points.  As I interpret the breadth requirement, this main aspect needs some coverage, and overall the article can't missing more than a few major points.


 * I think the free days, days of operation, and even more can be included in the article as "encyclopedic", or rather "wikipedic" -- suitable for wikipedia, not quite the same thing. I bet many articles on museums include this kind of information, and it may represent consensus to include it.  I don't see the added info as advertisy as written, since the statements don't seem to be trying say "come to the museum".  They are minor points, though, in my estimation.


 * The operations info needs to be in its own section. What little operational information there is now shouldn't be under "recent exhibits".  Having operational info there makes the article disorganized in that section and therefore not sufficiently well written.    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is what I have added sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The organization problem: yes. The operation main aspect: yes.
 * Glad I could help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be a major point missing still: who has ultimate power over the museum.  The board of trustees does, but how are they chosen or elected?  Does the mayor appoint them, does the rest of the board appoint them?  That is the key to the ultimate authority question.
 * I am not sure whether this type of information is available on the public record. It does not seem to be discussed in the annual report or on the museum website.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can't get the information. In addition, I just thought that the number of visitors per year or somesuch would be a good thing to add.    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And the newly added stuff needs a copyedit, as there are some punctuation and spelling errors. Oh, by How many people work there? I was talking about the number of people who work at the museum.    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to copyedit and found many of the errors you referred to. I can not tell you how many employees they have, but did figure out that they have three departments and included that in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was one last typo, I got it.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I've given the whole article a good lookover, and I'm seeing numerous and varied problems: several sentences that are contradictory or otherwise don't make sense, too much unnecessary detail in places, disorganized writing in places, overwikilinking or redlinking, not enough information about the collection, and a lack of background information about other topics referred to in the article which would give the article more "color".


 * Examples of the problems, with the problem text underlined:


 * While the Museum has an mandatory admission charge and operates with a suggested admission ...


 * The museum has a 296-seat multi-use theater with a proscenium-layout stage. The seats are laid out in 14 rows with two side aisles. The stage is 52 by 34 feet (16 m × 10 m) and elevated 36 inches (91 cm) above the floor level of the first row of seats. The house has a 12 degree incline. The stage has three curtains and four catwalks. [33]


 * The Organisation section is an example of disorganized writing.


 * The second paragraph of the History section is overwikilinked and redlinked.


 * A brief description of some of the significant paintings or artists would be very helpful


 * The article mentions that the MCA is the second largest museum of its kind. We could mention the largest one.


 * I am only giving one example of each problem, there are many others. There is too much to patch up here, though the article clearly has merits and good information for readers.  I have to support the delisting.  The article needs a good peer review followed by another GAN-- one that offers specific commentary.    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to close as no action. This GAR has been left open for an extended period, resulting in multiple reviewer comments, but not, unfortunately, in any move to close this reassessment by relisting the article; indeed the delisting has been supported. Since no more favourable outcome seems possible now, I propose to close the reassessment fairly promptly (within 24-48 hours) as "no action" so that the article can be renominated at an opportune moment. Geometry guy 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that move.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you are the nominator, that pretty much decides it. I'll do it tomorrow unless there are substantial objections. Geometry guy 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)