Talk:Glenstone/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: thank you for beginning the review! I'm looking forward to learning how to improve the article. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: thank you so much for the quick and thorough review! I'm glad the article is on the right track. I'll work through your notes over the next two weeks.

@Cloud atlas: That's great, fourteen days (not a week) for the issues to get addressed it is. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I'll be working on the article over the next few days. I just now saved edits to the lead, and added my notes/responses/questions underneath yours below for the lead section. I'll ping you again once I've finished with everything, so that you won't need to look at my changes in pieces. If I should keep my notes elsewhere, please let me know! Thank you! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I'm finished going through all your notes. Thank you so much for such a thorough review! I really appreciate how you demonstrated the image layout and how you found that additional source. I also learned a ton about style and templates. I left notes of my own under some of yours with open questions that I hope we can resolve. Please let me know what comes next! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud atlas: Thanks for all your work, I will now spend some time checking the article again and replying to any questions raised during the review process. I'll let you know when I think everything is sorted. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead section

• Convert 15 miles; 230-acre .

 Done

• Link 'curated'.

 Done

• Comma after ...free to the public .

 Done

• References 1-3 can be moved to the text (see MOS:LEADCITE for where I am coming from): this is not a requirement for GA, but nothing in the lead section is contraversial, and so the citations can be safely be used to verify the main article, and not what is in the lead section.

 Done

• I'm not sure why the architect Charles Gwathmey is not included in the infobox.

 Done I added Gwathmey to the infobox, and also included parenthetical explanations of which architect designed which building. Please let me know if those explanations are unnecessary -- I just didn't want it to seem like they collaborated on the design.

• ...in many mediums… - clearly, international artists would produce different kinds of art, and so can safely be removed from the lead section (also, removing avoids the difficulties involved in using the term mediums - see this link.

 Done

• A significant expansion was opened to the public on October 4, 2018; and is noted for its distinctive setting… - avoid peacock terms 'significant' and 'distinctive' (see WP:PEACOCK).

 Done It now says that the 2018 expansion is the museum's "largest expansion".

• an arrival hall, entry pavilion, bookstore and two cafés - mundane information that can easily be left out. That the museum is privately owned is only mentioned in a quote half way down the article. That the museum is contemporary is only mentioned in the lead section and the infobox, and not in the main text.

 Done and will address the mentioning of contemporary in the body with forthcoming edits.

• Also include in the lead section notable aspects of the museum mentioned in the text: by established artists with more than 15y experience; buildings include the original building designed by Gwathmey; has recieved generally positive reviews in the press; environmental centre opened in 2019; legal battle over cost overruns.

I added much of this information, and broke the lead into three paragraphs. I could imagine including more, but I'm worried about making the lead too long. Should I be concerned about that? Should I add any more information about the "generally positive reviews", such as the reviews' praise of the landscape? Or should I add something that conveys that one of Glenstone's defining characteristics is the deliberate tranquil experience given it by its architect and curator? I did not include the legal battle in the lead, because I believe that would overstate its relative emphasis.

- The lead section looks much better now, and can imo opinion be left as it is. --Ami

• According to WP:MOSLEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The following therefore needs to be included in the main text. '...private contemporary (art museum...)'; '...15 miles from downtown Washington, D.C..'; '...(from artists) around the world, and is noted for its distinctive (setting)...'; ' First opened (in 2006),...'; '... and is open free to the public via online booking.'; ' It has been compared to other private museums such as the Frick Collection and The Phillips Collection.'

I will address this with forthcoming edits to other sections.

 Done

History

• That Glenstone is an art museum needs to be included in this section.

 Done

• In 1986, Rales… - Full name required here. Introduce him as if there was no lead section, e.g. 'the billionaire American businessman Mitchell Rales'.

 Done -- adding this here made me want to double check something about style. If something is linked in the lead, should it also be linked when mentioned again in the body of the article? After a close reading of the MOS, I did not add those links.

• ...purchased the Potomac, Maryland property, a former fox hunting club,… - needs copy-editing.

 Done

• Rales first conceived of the idea - replace Rales with 'He'.

 Done

• ...of existence - remove this, as did it ever not exist during this period?

 Done

• Add 'was' after The expansion cost....

 Done

• ...a factor of five, and included… - c/e by changing to 'a factor of five: it included' .

 Done -- I clarified to make clear that the "factor of five" refers to the gallery space, not the land area.

• After the 2018 expansion, … - replace with 'After 2018,' to simplfy the text.

 Done

• She also referenced potential plans… - I'm not sure what referencing means here.

 Done -- replaced with "mentioned"

• ...the museum admitted 10,000 visitors. - this sounds like a lot, but The Washington Post states (reference 1) "in its first seven years of operation, only 10,000 people visited". As this is an average of 27 a week, consider amending the text, adding 'only'.

 Done

• A major expansion… - remove 'major' (peacock term).

 Done -- replaced with "largest expansion"

• 230-acre - this information is repeated 2 sections down: imo it makes more sense to remove the information from this section.

 Done

Collection and exhibitions

• One of the collection's constraints is that it only contains works by artists… - why is this considered a constraint, and by whom? What are the other 'constraints'? Why 'only'? Consider changing to 'The collection contains works by artists...'.

 Done

• ...only one or two pieces… - I'm not sure why 'only' is here.

I included "only" because many of the sources mention that including only one or two pieces in a large gallery room is distinctive for a museum and causes Glenstone to have a "spare" feeling. Most museums display many works in a given room. I think this is an important characteristic of the museum, but I'm not sure how to describe it in another way. Maybe by saying (in quotes) that only one or two works are displayed in a room giving it a "spare" feeling?

Looking at it, the sentence conveys the meaning you intended. --Ami

• ...the collection will rotate through the galleries over time… - the text implies it hasn't happened yet, is that right? (if not, the text needs to be amended).

 Done

• recent undergraduate students… - all undergraduates are recent, surely. I would replace the text with something like 'both recently graduated students and undergraduates'.

I think this might be a difference between American and British usage after looking at the articles on Undergraduate education and Postgraduate education. I'm trying to say that the staff are made up of people who recently graduated from university and are not currently in a postgraduate program ("recent undergraduates"), and people who are in a postgraduate program ("graduate students"). How do you recommend I convey that? Perhaps "staff is made up of recent university graduates, some of whom are in postgraduate programs"?

'staff is made up of recent university graduates, including those on postgraduate programs'.

 Done

• "Emerging Professionals Program" - as this not a quotation, the quote marks are unnecessary.

 Done

• Link 'curator'.

 Done

• This uniformed staff is stationed in the galleries to answer questions… - copy-edit, maybe to 'Staff in the galleries are available to answer visitors' questions...'.

 Done

• The painting is expected to be shown in Glenstone. - I'm not clear about why this is included, as all museums buy artworks to show at some time (either privately or publicly).

 Done -- I originally included this because the museum set a record for a price paid for a work from this artist. But I agree that it's likely that many museums do this at some point or another.

Architecture

• "the Pavilions" and "Water Court" - I don't know the quotes are needed here, as they don't appear later.

 Done

• ...been referred to… - referred to by whom?

 Done

• Because of its effort … - please can you explain who made the effort (designers, architect, the Rales)., as it wasn't Glenstone, which is what the text implies.

 Done

• If you go to the link Modernism you get an article about art and philosophy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Is it the correct word?

 Done -- linked to "modernist architecture"

• Convert units to metres and square metres, including ...six-foot-long… (6-foot-long (1.8 m)).

I converted the units manually throughout the article, and it's not until I saw the wikitext for this comment that I realized that the "convert" template exists. Should I be using that for all conversions instead of the hard-coded conversions I added?

Happy to do it for you, it's a 'quickfix'. --Ami

 Done -- I just figured out this amazing template, and I think I added it in correctly myself! -- Cloud atlas

Yes, they all worked. --Ami

• ...which was designed… - just 'designed'.

 Done

• Among the influences for the design are the… - Consider combining this with the previous sentence (to produce 'designed by American architect Thomas Phifer, who was influenced by the Ryoan-ji Zen temple in Kyoto, Japan, the Menil Collection in Houston, and Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Denmark.').

I didn't make this change because in the source, it looks like this info came from Mitchell Rales, the founder of the museum. He's not the architect, and so it's not clear whether he added this influence, or if the architect was also influenced directly. I could say specifically that the founder was influenced by these other landmarks, if you think that would be better than leaving it ambiguous.

Understood. I would make it as clear as you can, in the way you suggest. --Ami

 Done

• ...cast-concrete… - all concrete is cast, so is the article referring to Cast in place concrete or Precast concrete?

 Done -- the source says it's precast concrete.

• The Wall Street Journal - needs to be in italics.

 Done

• Link 'Aquatic plant'.

 Done

• Brion Cemetery - change to 'the Brion Cemetery'.

 Done

• Ensure that capitals are given to 'water court' throughout.

 Done

• The expansion also added 130 acres of land,... - add 'to the campus' after 'land'.

 Done

• ...and restorations of streams flowing through… needs copy-editing to 'and the restoration of streams that flowed through'.

 Done

• Types of trees in the landscape include sycamore, oak, redbud, dogwood, honey locust, birch, and copper beech. - I would leave this out, as it is unnecessarily detailed.

 Done

• ... several large art installations… - it's not clear what 'several' is referring to here (perhaps the total number, or the number by each artist listed), so consider leaving it out.

 Done

Reception

• positive review - remove 'positive', unless there is a citation for it.

 Done

• With "successful" and "enchanting", with a "sublime" viewing experience.; "conservative"; "soothing and contemplative" and "stunningly landscaped" - the text works quite well enough without the quote marks (see WP:QUOTEFARM for what I mean).

 Done

• ...Brian T. Allen called Glenstone… - replace 'called Glenstone' with 'described Glenstone as' (please ignore if this is already correct American English).

 Done

• Ultimately, Smee's review was highly positive,... WP:EDITORIALIZING warns against words such as ultimately, and WP:PEACOCK would label highly positive as an "unprovable proclamation". I think it's easier to remove the phrase altogether. --Ami

 Done

Sustainability / Legal dispute

• I would delete the Sustainability section, moving the sentences elsewhere, e.g. to the end of the 'Buildings' sub-section.

 Done -- I moved the sustainability center to the "Buildings" sub-section and the sentence about public buses to the end of the "History" section.

• Units need to be converted.

 Done

• Remove the link to sued (a common term).

 Done

• Remove HITT Contracting sued Glenstone… and combine the two sentences, so improving the prose.

 Done

References

• Consider including this source? (it mentions a couple of points not already in the article).

 Done -- Thank you for finding this source! I added a few facts from it.

The use of images in the article

I would re-organise some of the images, to tidy up the article. This is not required for GAN, but it would make a difference to the layout. The following points describe what I mean, and I have shown what I think would work [here]. The main points are:

 Done -- I removed the Gallery header and moved the gallery itself to the Buildings section. I want to make sure that's what you intended.

• consider moving the image Smug to the right hand side;
• the buildings images would look better if they were all together in the gallery;
• a number of images (e.g. the ones that are very similar to each other) do not add to the article, and can go (I would remove the entrance image, Pavillions detail, Pavilions interior courtyard detail (both of them), Pavilions exterior detail and Water Court in the Pavilions complex);
• the larger images in the article should be reduced to being thumb-sized;
• I would move the image of Untitled to the Reception section (top right hand side), to avoid there being too many images elsewhere in the article.

Also,

• Does the caption under the infobox image need to be dated? Consider having no caption at all if the image is up to date.

 Done

• As people do age, the caption Emily Wei Rales and Mitchell Rales under the image of the Rales does need a date.

 Done

Close!

One comment to address, and it's done, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: thank you! I removed those peacock terms, and I also made two other changes. Please let me know if those aren't right:

• In the reception section, I removed situations where there were periods both inside and outside a quote that ended a sentence, e.g. but experienced and reflected upon.". This became but experienced and reflected upon." I only did that when the end of the quote was also the end of a sentence, otherwise I did like interesting to see how it is received".
• I looked at a few featured articles to understand the pattern, and I saw that wikilinks seem to repeated for the first occurrence in the body of an article, even if a term is mentioned and linked in the lead. For instance, I linked "Mitchell Rales" both in the lead and in its first occurrence in the body.

I think that's it! Please let me know what's next! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Passing

Passing now, well done on producing a gem of an article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)