Talk:Dia Bridgehampton

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this shortly. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments on prose:

• "The overall renovation was sympathetic" What does this mean? I think this needs to be explained better or a different word used.
• "At the opening of the museum the New York Times stated that an exhibit of fire department memorabilia," The article doesn't need to say who reported about future exhibits. Instead, it can just state that these were planned at the opening.
• Merge the last two paragraphs of "Dia and Dan Flavin"
• "The Dan Flavin Art Institute, within Dia Bridgehampton, consists of nine works in fluorescent light, as well as one drawing, all by Dan Flavin and all on permanent display." The phrasing is awkward, especially with all the commas. Try rephrasing or splitting it up.
• "Dia expresses, in the pamphlet describing the institute," Delete "pamphlet describing the institute" as it is not needed.
• "In a New York Times article about the opening of the museum, it is reported the plans for this" The reader does not need to know where it was reported.
• The "Temporary exhibitions" section should be broken up with level 3 headings.

Image review:

• Images are properly licenced
• Captions are fine

Source review:

• No major issues with sources.
• Suggest archiving the sources using IA Bot
• No issues with earwig (high percentage is because of direct quotes)
• Source check not completed yet.

When the above are addressed, I'll do another read-through and verify the sources. I made edits along the way, so feel free to revert anything that isn't helpful. I'll place this on hold in the meantime. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Due to a lack of response, I'll close this as unsuccessful. This can be renominated when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2024 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dia Bridgehampton/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

I've read through this article a few times, and in a lot of places it is not clear whether this is an article about a museum, or the building a museum is in.

Half of the history section can be read before the museum is mentioned. Most of the first paragraph of the article is a history of the building. The section #Historic display is again about the history of the building (this section is somewhat more excusable, but again goes into too much detail. These issues will need to be address before the review moves forward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thanks for starting the review. Dia Bridgehampton, while ostensibly an art museum, is really a permanent, site-specific, art installation. This building, and it's history are part of the art. This article is about both. The "museum" only includes 10 works but also includes the building, as things like the red newel post, and exterior lighting are only understandable in the context of the greater history of the building. Dividing the article into two, one about the building and one about the museum, does not seem practical as there is so much overlap between them. I have changed the "history" section to "building history" in hopes of calming some of your fears, but Dia Bridgehampton is firstly a building, and secondly a museum.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I need to have a think about this. Your comments have helped, although I would like to see how you are describing it reflected in the lede to better see the coherence. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I reworked the lead a little bit to bring the museum info forward and the building info into the second paragraph. I also pulled the info about the newel post and lights into a new "Building interventions" section. Found5dollar (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm liking this a lot more. Some notes, "small interventions in the architecture" is vague and almost euphemistic, and "historic memorabilia display" is ambiguous whether it's referring to the building or Flavin.

What I want is the lede to be as explicit as you have been, saying "the building is itself an exhibit" or equivalent to establish the building as part of the subject (although verifiably). Essentially, the argument against splitting has to be made in the lede. Because looking at the article right now, I'd be in favour of a split. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I cleaned up the two terms you questioned and updated the lead some more making it clear that the renovations to the building were made under Flavin's explicit direction. This is all already sourced in the article in the "Dia and Dan Flavin" section. Found5dollar (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Put a lot of thought into this, and I know what needs to be done.

1) Split up the history: The article is about the museum. Including all the information about the history of the building goes beyond background and gives the impression that the article subject is the building, and the museum is just one occupant. The building history should be put later in the article to reflect the "building as an exhibit" status, preferably above the #Building interventions section.

2) Integrate much information on building interventions into the building history. The section can be renamed "The building" or equivalent rather than building history. This ties back the discussion of the building to the museum, ensuring that the article does not go off topic. For instance, in a section on the building as a church, integrate the contemporary display of the cross.

3) The lede should reflect the split of history. I am unsure that the changes that were made in trying to address this so far have improved the article, I think the conceptual split can be better addressed, but this is for after the body is written.

Thankyou for your patience. I know this has been a pain, but I hope when this is done, we can agree it was worth it. I want to improve this article, that's why I chose to review it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I have 1) reordered and changed the division of the history section to divide it into information about the building, Dia, and the museum. 2) reincorporated information about the building interventions into the history section and 3) did a bit of work to the lead so the paragraphs are about the museum, then the building, then Dia. This article only has 3 paragraphs (plus a bit in the lead) about the building before it became a museum, while the rest of the article is about the construction, displays, and exhibitions of the institute. That seems within reason to me. I disagree about folding information about the historic display into the building section as this display is referenced repeatedly as an exhibit in the museum. Found5dollar (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the page after your changes, I still felt it failed WP:GACR #3. Given how I felt about it, I didn't want to just make you rewrite it again if I wasn't going to be happy with it, and I don't want to fail this article. Instead, I've spent a while trying to rewrite the page to better achieve this, in my sandbox. Diffs.

I tried a few times, this is the only one I didn't delete. I feel okay about it. I didn't do all the needed changes, but I've tried to do the structural changes and gesture towards the things that need to be different. Reading the version there, I think the issue of subject identity is resolved, alleviating the concerns with #3.

I really really hope this helps. If you disagree with the changes, let me know. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: thank you for the work you put into thinking about this article and considering changes. Many of the suggestions in your sandbox I can get behind but the big one I disagree with is moving the building history to the end of the article. You need to read those three paragraphs for context to understand many other sections. You need ot read it before "Focus on Long Island artist" since that section talks about how artists are using and referencing the history of the building. You need to read it before you read about the renovations of the building because that section references parts of the building that only make sense in the context of the buildings history. Having two separate history sections, one for the museum one for the building, seems confusing to me. I'd suggest just moving the building history section back into the general "History" section under its own subheadding, or just move these three paragraphs to a section called "The building" earlier in the article.

Sure, let's move it up. Maybe after Dan Flavin Art Institute, and move the Temporary artists section to the end? I would like the historic display to be grouped with discussion of the building as a preference.

I still think having two history sections works, given one is a history of the subject, and the other is a history of a closely related topic, and mixing them together would just confuse what the subject is. If you disagree then I can ask for a second opinion on this and we can (finally) get into the review proper. I don't mind the suggestion to move it into a "The building" section. Would you merge the historic displays in there as well or keep them separate? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)