The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Ɱ To facilitate the review (and being now quite familiar with your strong work ethic), I will assume good faith with your responses to all remaining comments; please feel free to hide all addressed comments under collapse. These also include enough spot checks to satisfy GA criteria, so I'll only need to double check images after everything here is addressed and we should be good to go. :-) Ppt91talk 15:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Thanks so much for all your hard work. I am very happy to pass it! Ppt91talk 13:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click below to see complete review
Extended content
@Ɱ I am very happy to review this interesting article on an important New York City building. I also wanted to mention that due to other professional commitments and impending deadlines, it might take me longer than one week to complete the first round of review. I hope that's okay with the nominating editor and am looking forward to working together. Ppt91talk 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this up! No worries on the time frame. ɱ(talk) 03:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Phew, sorry about the delay! First batch below. Feel free to respond directly in the comments and mark feedback when addressed/fixed. Ppt91talk 21:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I am going to be away the next 3-4 days, so will address the comments soon afterward. One quick note, I usually consider MOS:OL when linking, and won't link words understood by most readers in this context. Do the links you suggest below not apply? For instance, most readers will know what a museum, retail, or condominium is, and I believe most others listed there as well. ɱ(talk) 13:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included a short explanation before the first link to address this. Generally, I don't include a link suggestion unless I feel it will be helpful to an unfamiliar reader. To be honest, I think that MOS:OL rules tend to be applied in a somewhat restrictive way which often results in underlinked articles. If you disagree with some of these links being too obvious, feel free to leave them out. Ppt91talk 15:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: I think the intro sounds good overall, though somewhat short relative to the overall length of the article per MOS:LEAD. I think it would benefit from expanding on following sections from the article: the context of the original Whitney commission; few more words about the original site; its landmark designation; and the work's influence on contemporary architecture.
I tend to err on the side of caution with links, so if you feel strongly about not including some of them, that's fine with me.
Link museum
Link granite and concrete
Link cantilevered
Link critics
Modernism relinked to modern architecture
Comment: I would avoid using the term modernist to describe the building’s architectural style and especially in the same sentence as brutalist, considering the latter originated from the former. Instead, I’d say something along the lines of “Often described as an example of Brutalism in modern architecture, 945 Madison has exterior faces of variegated granite and exposed concrete.” This would also indicate that this stylistic designation is not authoritative, which you discuss later.
Done the bulleted parts (some links not done), Not doneyet the general comment. Going through this review will take me good time! ɱ(talk) 21:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the general comment. ɱ(talk) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The 21st century site changes are partially attributed to development spurred by the Met Breuer's opening in 2016.” I would leave this out for now and discuss later when you talk about the subsequent tenants
General comments: I’ll leave the decision up to you, but Site might work better as subsection of Design. It’s a rather short section on its own.
Done. Linked rowhouses, the others I read to be too commonplace of terms. I do describe the changes in the general neighborhood here, which would be weird in the section on the building's history, and fits naturally here while talking about the rowhouses formerly on the site and that exist around it now. It's a weird box with nothing like it around it. ɱ(talk) 21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments: I realize that the commission is discussed later in History section, but the reader should have a bit more context here, even it is just one or two sentences, to know where the commission came from; the rest of the history can still remain in the relevant detailed section
Citation 4: I was unable to find the article author, so Architectural Forum should include at least the editor’s name: Henry R. Luce
Where is this name from? The PDF calls a "Henry Luce III" the "Circulation Director", but I don't see an editor listed. ɱ(talk) 14:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see p. 63 in editorial under editor-in-chief, is that correct for that magazine? Ppt91talk 15:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, good catch. ɱ(talk) 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 10: Same for Progressive Architecture; editor: Jan C. Rowan
Citation 13: this is an MS thesis, which should be included in the footnote
See below note about press release. ɱ(talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good moment to say a few more words about Bauhaus from Bergdoll’s really interesting article; it was consequential for modern architecture which the source discussed in depth
There is a lot of extra content in this work, making me place it in the "Further reading" section as well. What page(s) are you indicating? I saw p. 6 rather describes the building as the "antithesis" of the Bauhaus movement. ɱ(talk) 14:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave up to you! It was just a suggestion to expand using a really useful source which you're already using to at least mention the relevance of Bauhaus Ppt91talk 15:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 16: incorrect footnote format; missing author; name should be changed to Architectural Record and it should include date March 4, 2021; also it’s behind a paywall, so that should be included in the footnote
“or part of the larger Modernist movement” as I mentioned earlier, Brutalism would still be considered part of the modern architecture, so this distinction is redundant and I would remove it, unless you think want to use this as an opportunity to explain what modernist architecture was (functional, utilizing industrial materials, rejecting ornamentation etc.)
I think it's important to clarify not only that some people call the building "Modernist" and not Brutalist, and to specify that Modernism was an architectural movement that included Brutalism. I link both styles so people can read into their characteristics and form their own beliefs. I've actually been in quite an argument or two over this building's architectural style, there's some fierce views in both directions, but we just have to present what the RSs say. ɱ(talk) 15:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to concur and I agree that we should follow RS if that point can be clearly made. I think that generally "Modernism" as a concept tends to be overused in both art and architecture to a point where it loses its meaning; but since you'll specify, I think that's more than fine. Perhaps it would still make sense to give a few words of explanation as to what that term entails? I'll let you decide! Ppt91talk 15:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 17: missing author Karrie Jacobs and inconsistent dating format
“The Metropolitan Museum of Art discouraged the association” should be specified that it was the curators of the museum after it had moved to the new location; because the history of the tenants comes later, the reader is unaware where the Met comes from or why they would say it
“as less of an aesthetic than a position” it’s not clear what position means here; maybe just say that the use of concrete has been addressed by Sarah Williams Goldhagen who stated that… and include the rest in this format
This is explained in the next sentence, that architects at the time had to take a position between commercial architecture, steel, and glass; or monumental buildings made of concrete. Perhaps an ideological position (if that's the right term) is less in common parlance than political position. Can you help me find a way to make this clearer? ɱ(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ How does this sound: "The use of concrete in the building was characterized by Sarah Williams Goldhagen as more of a stance than an aesthetic. Goldhagen explained that contemporary progressive architects faced a choice between employing steel and glass or reinforced concrete, typically adhering to one material over the other. As steel and glass became increasingly synonymous with commercial structures and mass production, concrete exuded a sense of monumentality, authenticity, and timelessness." This still retains your context, but perhaps the term "stance" clarifies things more? Let me know if you think this works. Ppt91talk 15:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edited, let me know what you think. ɱ(talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The building was designed in the spirit of the nearby Guggenheim Museum – another unique artistic landmark created by a renowned architect, completed seven years earlier.” This sounds too vague and somewhat misleading; article states that the museum wanted it to be “in the spirit, if not the form, of Wright’s defiant Guggenheim” so it’s best to just quote the author directly on this by using “According to architectural critic John Morris Dixon…”
Perhaps the "renowned architect, completed seven years earlier" is vague, as it was known as a Wright design, completed in 1959. But the way of wording it relates it better to the subject, as also having a renowned architect, and being close in date. I don't always like "name-dropping" as it weakens the facts to sound like opinions. The Architectural Forum article is a factual article, not a review or opinion piece, and the idea is substantiated in Ezra Stoller's book. ɱ(talk) 13:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Breuer designed the building in response to specific desires from the Whitney Museum – a unique and unmistakable identity, a building that expresses the personality of its institution.” This part needs to be expanded to include the specific characteristics discussed in the source (page 123) and clearly illustrate what kind of identity it was; that’s especially important in distinguishing it from other institutions
“The majority of the upper floor windows are simply decorative, and meant to prevent claustrophobia.” Is this claim from footnote 6? I searched the document and could not find any mention; if not, then needs source
This is from citation 8. Citations may not always be super clear. The software is limiting (though most books are even more limited, with no in-line citations!). I dislike putting citations after every sentence, as it forms too much visual clutter; we are supposed to put citations simply after all the content it supports. But sometimes other citations also are used within that content. So it becomes a little confusing, but you're bound to find the relevant citation always in that paragraph. ɱ(talk) 21:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link load-bearing
Link parapet
All of these links Done. ɱ(talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“While exhibition space was made relatively bare at the museum’s opening” awkward phrasing; should be clarified to better reflect information from page 241
As I mentioned earlier, the unfamiliar reader will not really know much about the context of the Met Breuer until later; I think that Met Breuer changes should be discussed in more detail in the relevant section unless you’d like to change this into a note
Reworded. ɱ(talk) 15:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“functional sculpture” needs more context as it is unclear what this means in current form; I think it’d be best to cite the author; I’d say: According to scholar Robert McCarter, the building incorporates “one of the best examples of Breuer’s ability to make staircases into functional sculpture”. However, I am also wary of citing a book without specific page numbers and, unfortunately, Google Books does not offer the preview for this publication, which means we are left with Phaidon’s promotional material. I'll leave the decision up to you.
Phaidon is a great publisher; I trust that it's in the book. There's a hard copy in a library 9 miles away I might try to read, but for now I can do this. ɱ(talk) 16:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Lighting was designed to be almost entirely artificial, with only a few windows, angled to prevent direct sunlight from entering.” I would move this up to where you discuss windows, as that seems like an important element explaining the windowless design
Yes, but... the windows are in the exterior section especially for this building because they stick out in trapezoids remarkably in seemingly-random places throughout the facades. This section you quote above is primarily about the electric lights used in the building's interior, with just a reference back to why all the lighting is artificial - lack of window light. ɱ(talk) 16:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Links in this section are Done/not done. ɱ(talk) 17:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The lobby contains an information desk, coatroom, and waiting spaces.” Since the earlier section makes it sound like the coat room might be separate from the lobby, I’d remove it from there and only keep here (and thus link here)
Good catch. I don't remember where exactly this coatroom is/was, so it works better in the earlier section, with the "as originally designed" element. ɱ(talk) 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“noted by the Met's contemporary art chair as a delightful attention to detail” I would remove this completely, unless you want to cite the specific person by name (was it Sheena Wagstaff?)
The below text is a wonderful and vibrant description. I attempted to translate it into neutral wikitext, but perhaps you can suggest a better approach?
On an early February tour, while workers buzzed about, Wagstaff gushed: “I cannot emphasize enough how bloody amazing this building is.” Yes, she is British, and the former chief curator of the Tate Modern. “There is this brilliant tension between the sensuality and colors of the materials he uses and the way he deals with the ceilings and the austerity of what the building is meant to represent.” She points to Breuer’s bush-hammered concrete walls in the lobby, which are framed by smooth boardformed edges. “I mean, look! He frames the concrete. It’s kind of a fetishist’s delight.”
“had an unoriginal gift shop” was this discussed earlier?
It's an interesting detail I'd like to keep, but no, I don't think any sources mention the (relatively trivial) detail of a new gift shop being placed in the lobby. So no idea when/where exactly this was put in. ɱ(talk) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The Breuer Building has a lower level dining space that has seen numerous tenants.” to “The Breuer Building features a lower-level dining area that has hosted various tenants.”
Unclear, will investigate further. Likely it was just contracted to a foodservice company; notable specialty cafes/restaurants in museums seems to be a 21st-century trend. Can mention this in the article too... ɱ(talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am finally done adding in details of the restaurant space here. Please review and let me know your thoughts. ɱ(talk) 16:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me! Ppt91talk 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change “which moved along with the Whitney to Lower Manhattan in 2015” to “which in 2015 re-opened at the Whitney’s new Renzo Piano-designed building in the Meatpacking District.”
Done, left out architect, doesn't seem too pertinent here. ɱ(talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“During 945 Madison's operation as the Met Breuer” needs to include years in brackets
Added 2015, and later in the paragraph it mentioned closing and turning into the Frick... ɱ(talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Ppt91talk 21:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Just finished the next batch and wanted to pre-emptively address my editing style here. This is essentially the only section where I have more extensive suggestions for prose, primarily because it’s a lot of new background information about the museum itself and some of it should be clarified. If it seems like too much of an intervention, it is only because of my copy-editing style. I find it easier to re-write the entire sentence than provide a myriad of small edits. That said, I am by no means saying these need to be followed verbatim and you should feel free to amend these to your liking or introduce other changes. Ppt91talk 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the note about style too. I hope my comments back aren't at all or ever taken personally. ɱ(talk) 12:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I just want to be respectful toward your hard work while at the same time streamlining the review process. :-) Ppt91talk 19:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose suggestion for clarity: “In 1929, philanthropistGertrude Vanderbilt Whitney founded the Whitney Museum to champion American modern art. Prior to this, she had offered 500 artworks from her collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, only to have her proposal declined. Consequently, Whitney resolved to establish her own museum, initially showcasing around 700 works of American art. The museum initially opened its doors to the public in 1931 at 8 West 8th Street. However, this location quickly proved inadequate. In 1954, the museum relocated to an annex of the Museum of Modern Art at 22 West 54th Street, but this space also failed to meet the museum’s rapidly growing needs.”
Prose suggestion: “During the 1960s, the Whitney Museum expanded its board of trustees beyond the Whitney family and their close advisors, welcoming new members such as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy.”
“The board requested Breuer design the new museum in 1961.” Feels redundant considering the following sentence, so maybe the date can be included there?
Reworded, let me know if you like this way better? ɱ(talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 22: missing author Nicholas Olsberg and place of publication; should ideally also include description “exh. cat.” though that is just my personal preference in distinguishing exhibition catalogues from other scholarly publications, including those published by museums
Olsberg is cited in the work as the author of an essay making up most of the catalog, but not as the creator of the whole work. Indeed the first text is by another curator, and the last text is by a board member. My citation style, based on APA guidelines, omits type of source and locations. ɱ(talk) 15:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would add direct quote to describe they were chosen because they “captured the committee’s imagination”; I know the publication is not paginated, but would you be opposed to including page number based on count (6)? Totally fine if not
Yeah if you count the cover, it'd be 7. For digital documents, I am not overwhelmingly concerned with page numbers, as the text is searchable, making it easier to locate via searching than via finding the page and reading. ɱ(talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“who demolished them before the museum purchased” – should not be “had demolished them”?
Either works, as would "had them demolished" would work. I think fewer words is less awkward here. ɱ(talk) 16:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose suggestion: “The Whitney selected the location as it was situated equidistant from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Jewish Museum, in a neighborhood increasingly populated by private art galleries.” (if you want to use different wording, ensure you use full museum names for each)
Each of them (except for the Jewish Museum) do appear earlier in the body of the article with their names in full, and now even with the MoMA abbreviation. Especially for this case, once you specify an abbreviation, it's fine and normal to use that later in the article; it'll sound more natural... Will change other wording here at least. ɱ(talk) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose suggestion: “The building, designed in 1963, was built between 1964 and 1966.”
Loses some of the chronology, I think even the lead is more fleshed out. There's a lot between those dates! ɱ(talk) 16:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose suggestion: “During a member preview event the night prior, the museum received four phone warnings of a bomb in the building. However, a thorough police search found no evidence of any threat.”
Prose suggestion: “The inaugural Whitney Biennial exhibition took place in 1973 at the Breuer Building, featuring works by 221 artists. The 1993 edition of the show, considered by some critics to be among the most notable and known as the “political biennial”, also took place in the same building. Curated by Elisabeth Sussman, this event showcased art that addressed race, gender, sexuality, AIDS, and socioeconomic issues.”
Reworded mostly like this. ɱ(talk) 16:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here “design was actually built” does it refer to actual small expansion or just a larger-scale project maquette? I am slightly confused by the wording and sorry if I am missing something obvious here
Right, yup, as explained later in the body, big expansions were proposed, and smaller expansions as well, but only a very small and subtle expansion was actually approved and ever happened. ɱ(talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 41: I realize it’s an archived page, but is there any way to provide more information for the source? Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the website, hence my question
Citation 42: change to reflect the link’s content, e.g. "Project Archive: Whitney Museum of American Art (1998)". Gluckman Tang. Retrieved April 9, 2023.
Prose suggestion: “In 2001, the Whitney unveiled plans for another expansion designed by Rem Koolhaas and his firm OMA, aiming to further increase available space. The “enormous” proposed structure was designed to cantilever above and over the Breuer Building. The museum kept the proposal relatively confidential and ultimately abandoned it in 2003, prior to any review processes, citing economic concerns and poor timing.”
Mostly done, some of the text had already changed. ɱ(talk) 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“by some in the architecture field as not bold enough” – this sounds vague; was it critics and architectural historians? Or primarily architects?
Unclear, the article only directly cites the NY AIA director: "But some in architectural circles say the defeat of the original Renzo Piano plan was a setback for bold design. Fredric M. Bell, executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, called it "truly disappointing." ɱ(talk) 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
prose suggestion: “The Whitney's final exhibition in the building was a Jeff Koons retrospective in 2014. As the largest survey the museum dedicated to a single artist, it ranked among the Whitney’s most visited shows.”
Changed some, I think the use of the word "survey" here would be less clear to readers, even I am not very familiar with its use outside of surveys in research and land surveying. ɱ(talk) 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specify source for “confirmation that the Met branch was a bad idea, and the institution's president stated that its future was in the main building.”
Reworded for clarity. Source is ref 63. ɱ(talk) 18:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change “exhibit” to “exhibition” (it’s a discipline-specific pet peeve of mine and some people might roll their eyes, but “exhibit” usually relates to a specific object or a small display and tends to be misused as synonym for exhibition in the museum or gallery context)
The point is that this last exhibition was cut short due to COVID, and thus the month-early closure made the exhibition remarkably short-lived. ɱ(talk) 18:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose suggestion: “Since 1935, The Frick has been situated at Henry Clay Frick House, five blocks south of the Breuer building. However, due to a planned renovation, the museum will temporarily operate at 945 Madison for approximately two years.”
Is there a source for this opinion “though in a much more stark setting than the ornate mansion has.”?
I am not sure where I precisely took that from. The Frick's press release reads out essentially this exact idea. The cited Architectural Record article talks about the isolation of the artwork in this new setting, which was often overlooked among the "abundance of visual riches at the Frick mansion". And a high contrast between non-Modern works and the Modernist building. Same idea. ɱ(talk) 18:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link sculpture and vases
Not done, ordinary terms. ɱ(talk) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The temporary museum is the second reported occurrence of non-Modern works exhibited in the Modernist Breuer building, after the Met Breuer's inaugural exhibit.” This sounds ambiguous, unless you want to be very specific with describing periods, I would remove it entirely (despite it being used in the article, “non-Modern” does not denote any period and I am surprised Architectural Record would even let it run with various capitalizations because it brings no clarity or context...)
I think it's a very interesting and informative detail. I saw that first exhibit, the inaugural Met Breuer one, and it was remarkable. I think the idea of the Frick Madison is as well remarkable, but it is important to note that it's not the first time it's been done, and not even in the same building. I don't know my art history well enough to know a better term than "non-Modern". "Works of pre-modern art movements"? It doesn't make sense to list them all out... ɱ(talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph “The Frick's exhibits are sparsely placed” provides a more detailed description of how works are arranged than the earlier sentence about presentation, so I would move it up and remove the earlier sentence: "The artwork is presented like how it was in Frick Mansion, with no protective glass or descriptive texts, though in a much more stark setting than the ornate mansion has."
I would consider changing “barriers” to “stanchions” as it is more commonly used for museum contexts
This was what the NYT wrote, and I assume there are other forms of barriers to artwork. Also, the article on stanchion isn't a very helpful direction for someone who doesn't know that word, its lede is misleading for this context, and it barely discusses it in the context of museums, nor does the Wiktionary entry... ɱ(talk) 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link display cases
Common term. ɱ(talk) 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link chairman
Common term. ɱ(talk) 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More to come! Ppt91talk 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove: “It was nevertheless well-received as a masterpiece by critics in the 1960s, in architecture, art, and general magazines and newspapers.”; in its current form, the sentence seems confusing and I think it’s better to let the reviews speak for themselves with the intro you have; the rest of the section works great as is
I think if anything this article needs more supportive text indicating a positive reception, as many writers and the public still seem to view the building as too imposing, harsh, and not in line with the surrounding neighborhood. ɱ(talk) 00:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would link National Register of Historic Places (it’s linked in infobox, so I guess MOS would say no, but again, it’s an odd linking rule to me, where the reader would be expected to scroll all the way up because it’s already mentioned elsewhere in the article)
“Marcel Breuer's work with the Whitney Museum prompted an invitation to design for the Cleveland Museum of Art.” Is this citation 56? Seems like it should be footnoted because of the claim it makes
Again, as noted above, I place citations after all the content they support. ɱ(talk) 21:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 59: I believe the source is Atlanta Business Chronicle, also looks like it’s paywall, no?
Added publication. NYT and other newspapers require subscriptions... ɱ(talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“paired with the Atlanta firm Stevens & Wilkinson.” Might be a good idea to footnote this as the following one is direct quote necessitating separate citation
Prose suggestion: “In 2017, the Met Breuer hosted an exhibition titled Breuer Revisited: New Photographs by Luisa Lambri and Bas Princen, which showcased photographic representations of four works by Marcel Breuer, among them, 945 Madison Avenue.”
This is mostly a collection of ways the building influenced things, so to avoid looking like a timeline, I place dates later in the sentences/paragraphs... ɱ(talk) 00:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 62: missing full name of the museum (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) and type of source (“press release”)
As far as I know, Wikipedia's in-house citation style does not include writing down the type of source. None of these say "book", "web", "magazine", "thesis", etc. I think that for consistency, I do not include that. ɱ(talk) 21:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia:Further reading has good advice about this "When a references section has very many entries, making it difficult for a reader to identify those entries suitable for further reading, such entries may be selectively duplicated in Further reading.ɱ(talk) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Alright, done with review and putting the article on hold. The vast majority of stuff is formatting, prose clarity, and citation fixes, which I think will be pretty straightforward. Once that's out of the way, I'll do an images check. Looking forward to your edits/responses! Really fun and informative article to work on. Ppt91talk 19:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Yes from initial review
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Sections sufficiently address the scope and material provided is thoroughly researched. More feedback will be offered on each section separately.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
This is pretty much the only "n" in the criteria and a soft one at that. I anticipate my edits and feedback being focused primarily on issues related to WP:FOCUS, as some sections might need to be better organized to remain within the scope of the article.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
to be confirmed
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Moved the following comments to the end of the article, so as not to distract from content discussion. Ppt91talk 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ From my initial overview, this is a thorough article written by an experienced editor with extensive knowledge in the subject. It has a clearly defined scope, plenty of visual material, and sufficient reliable secondary sources ranging from architectural scholarship to more recent news sources detailing the tenant changes and accompanying developments. I anticipate majority of my review having to with formatting and prose suggestions to improve flow in some sections (for instance, the Whitney Museum-related material in History section, which seems relatively long and perhaps a bit too expansive for WP:FOCUS), although I don't believe there will be significant work regarding content. I might also provide some feedback regarding architectural history scholarship, though it is evident the nominator is well versed in secondary literature (one small thing I noticed, for instance, is that some more recent stuff by prominent contemporary architectural historians like Barry Bergdoll could be used more extensively as opposed to the NYT etc.). I'll look forward to discussing these and other aspects as we move along. I am providing GA criteria table below and to be followed by section by section feedback later on. :-) Ppt91talk 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback so far. Some replies, meant with absolutely no hard feelings:
I will be keen to see what information you find unnecessary. I am avid about describing the structure in great depth, as nearly all modern sources focus on the museum(s) or give only a cursory history/description of the building itself. Older sources do better but are far out of date, and thus I'd be happy to claim that this informs the reader in a way no other source does. I saw you and the template below cite Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:FOCUS, and Wikipedia:Article size. About these: the summary style guideline talks only about the inverse triange - for larger subjects, have branched-off smaller articles. It doesn't really advise in what should be removed. Wikipedia:FOCUS is about arguments in deletion discussions, not about article content. Wikipedia:Article size advises considering dividing or changing articles when above 50kb readable prose. This article, at 28kb readable prose, falls in the "< 40 kB - Length alone does not justify division." row. ɱ(talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ You're absolutely correct re WP:FOCUS link, which was an odd oversight on my end, since I was trying to reference GA focus criteria more broadly. I'll strike those links entirely, so as not cause any confusion. Frankly, what's written in WP:AS isn't particularly helpful, either, because it implies mostly technical aspects like size, which you mentioned, though my point was nowhere near that serious or invasive. To clarify, my suggestions had to do by and large with re-organizing what is already there as opposed to removing. As I mentioned earlier, that was pretty much the only, and by no means major, criticism based on my initial read of the entire article. I also avoided (or at least tried to avoid) the term unnecessary in my comments. In fact, because that word is included in the relevant review category (without going into unnecessary detail), I specified the scope of my feedback being limited to formatting and prose suggestions to improve flow in some sections. As for nearly all modern sources focus on the museum(s) or give only a cursory history/description of the building itself I believe we're in agreement here. I was referring to the museum (Whitney as an institution) history only and, again, primarily in regard to formatting and prose tweaks. I thought I quite explicit in my overall praise for the article and in articulating its many strengths, so it's a bit unfortunate that this kind of miscommunication occurred at the outset, it seems primarily due my error in linking the correct WP page, and completely unintentionally shifted the conversation in the wrong direction. Ppt91talk 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not upset by any means, I just tend towards defending what I write. I am eager to see how you can help this page! ɱ(talk) 21:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Great, I hope to have the first batch in by Monday. :-) Ppt91talk 18:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Ɱ, there hasn't been anything posted here since April. Where does the review stand, and how soon do you think it can be finished? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueMoonset, addressing these comments is high on my to-do list, and I promise I'll begin again on them soon. The volume is somewhat overwhelming, as are some of my real-life obligations! Will continue on some of it tomorrow. ɱ(talk) 01:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91: I think I have finally addressed all of these comments! Thank you for your patience; please let me know if you have any other questions. ɱ(talk) 00:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
