Talk:Getty Research Institute

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Getty Research Institute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: harej 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality: Clear and understandable. I am not sure what was meant by "Semantic Web supply," but the source did not mention it so I removed the phrase.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Article is logically organized.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources: Yes

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Yes, but citations to print sources should include page numbers. Also, "Getty Research Institute. Records, 1991-1999." is an unclear citation.

C. No original research: No original research.

Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects: The article serves as a sufficient summary of the Institute, including its history and activities.

B. Focused: The article is sufficiently detailed.

Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias: Yes

Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc: Very stable.

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: N/A

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: The article could use more images, such as the logo, pictures of relevant people, or photographs of their facilities, but I am not sure that such pictures are available.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

harej 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for conducting the review. I have added a photo of the exterior of the GRI Headquarters Building. Racepacket (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added page numbers to the extent that I could locate them, and clarified the citation to ""Getty Research Institute. Records, 1991-1999." which is an online library catalog entry explaining how GII programs were folded into GRI. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Article passed. hare j 19:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Getty Research Institute. 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/20061201093310/http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/exhibition/shulman to http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/exhibition/shulman

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Getty Research Institute. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nbm.org/exhibitions-collections/exhibitions/julius-shulman.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514130427/http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/publications.html to http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/publications.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Getty Research Institute

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Violates GA criteria 2b and 4 - significant information is uncited and the article is overall somewhat promotional in tone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:MISSION in lede, short lede that is not a full summary, very long (imo unwarranted) list of publications, staff section based on primary source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any comments about the other issues, but what is wrong with using a primary source as a reference for staff? Seems like a WP:ABOUTSELF situation to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I would argue that it is WP:UNDUE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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.