Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Chicago, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of Chicago related articles on Wikipedia. Please feel free to Join Us

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is AT&T Corporate Center. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

I made a few additions to this. I'm still fairly new at this, so if I did anything you disagree with, please tell me why on my talk page. In any case, I used the Museum of Modern Art article as a rough basis for the direction towards which this article needs to be expanded. L Glidewell 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collection

The article states 5,600 items, then 6,000. Their web site says 2,345 objects, or just under 5,000 if you include artist's books. I thought I'd ask for a source for those other numbers before changing this. L Glidewell 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the numbers on the MCA page [1]. Definitely only 2,345 objects (plus 2,500 books, as you said). Don't know where 5K or 6K come from. Good catch. - AKeen 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright violation

Edits made to the page on December 21 may be in violation of copyright as they appear to be taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by James R. Grossman, Ann Durkin Keating, and Janice L. Reiff (Chicago University Press, 2004), p.554. Shsilver 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the section that cites EOC, or another one? In any case, feel free to tag or delete the sentences that are copied verbatim. I'll be happy to try and replace them with original prose and proper citations. Best, L Glidewell 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly the introductory paragraph and the part about the new location, although there also appears to be some in the section on Past Exhibitions. If you go to the EOC website, you can see how much of the Wiki article is taken word for word from that source. Shsilver 23:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. I'll try to fix the copyright issues. Good catch. Edit: okay, I did my best. I see now, too, where the 5,600 works thing came from. L Glidewell 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nominee

Hello. Subject seems like a great potential Good Article but as you say it is short and I think could represent the museum better. Would it be possible to mention contemporary or postmodern art, say from the collection and recent exhibits? I am not an art historian but think the examples sound like those of a modern art museum, in other words, getting old now if art ever does. I would mention Illinois where you have "Chicago, USA." Is there any chance you could include free or fair use images of art and artists? Please feel free to remove the hold tag if you have already addressed these or similar points. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just offering a second opinion here... its coverage seems insufficiently broad to me. Nothing on the history of the museum (except in the lead; there should be a corresponding section in the article proper) and almost nothing on its architecture despite the fact that the architecture looks rather interesting from the picture. The prose is also substandard, with too many one and two paragraph sentences. Personally I would fail the article but will wait till the expiration of the hold period on Friday. MLilburne 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed. It meets the six things looked for in a good article, though it is slightly lacking in the third requirement, that is its broadness in coverage. Though it's not a fatal flaw, and could be improved upon. Keep up the good work. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)