Talk:Mission School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mission School was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: October 30, 2006

An entry from Mission School appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 November 2006.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is part of WikiProject Contemporary Art, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed and exciting guide to contemporary art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This article is part of WikiProject Graffiti, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to graffiti art, graffiti artists and all aspects of graffiti culture. Click Here for more information. This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Peter G Werner (talk • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mission School, has edited Wikipedia as CAMPSF (talk · contribs)

Contents 1 Classification 2 Failing GA 3 Comments by CAMPSF 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Kilgallengarage.jpg 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Mcgeegarage.jpg 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Nerihorse.jpg

[edit] Classification

certainly fails GA nomination. this is not even a B class article. lacks organizaation, headings and breadth. hasnt been related well to other historical movements of art in calif. only has one reference! Anlace 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think your assessment is a bit harsh here. One reference? No, there are about 9 sources given altogether, though all but one are simple links and are not listed in bibliographic format. That can be fixed, of course. Lacks subheadings - true, but its a short article. Lacks organization? How so? Specifics? Related well to to other art movements in California? As I stated, it is related to the "Lowbrow art" movement centered in Los Angeles, but trying to related to things like, say, the Bay Area Figurative Movement would be a bit artificial.

If this were an article about a multi-decade international art movement like Surrealism, I'd agree the coverage wouldn't be adequate, but a small (albeit influential) regional movement like this one? I think the article is at least B-class in its coverage of this subject, but I'm hardly the most objective reviewer. Peter G Werner 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Harsh is my job as the article's outside observer. In any case i have never seen a B class article this brief--let alone GA. It just has a long way to go. Set aside the reference issue for a moment (i was just looking more for monographs, not such heavy reliance on web references), let's concentrate on format and content. The article certainly needs subheadings to help the reader navigate. But most importantly the article lacks breadth:

(now im getting into writing the article for you):

• needs discussion of roots of movement. Dont tell me it grew out of nowhere or on the streets. i can see influences of artists from the 1960s and even earlier (eg Mexican Muralists)
• if it is so influential, whom or what did it influence?
• venue: is it just on the streets or in the museums as well. If in the museums, who started the serious collecting and what did reviewers say of the work? In any private galleries?

That's just a start. there are probably many other areas of expansion and breadth available if the movement is as important as you think. Dont get me wrong. I support practically any article on art. I just want our standards to be meaningful for art articles. Regards. Anlace 04:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, and even if the article isn't GA-worthy yet, I appreciate the suggestions on how to bring it up. However, when you mention "venue: is it just on the streets or in the museums as well. If in the museums, who started the serious collecting and what did reviewers say of the work? In any private galleries?" – Did you read the article? I have a list of a number of San Francisco galleries (to which I probably should add New York's Deitch Projects) and one museum that are closely associated with this movement, as well as the participation of several of these artists in two Venice and Whitney Biennials. As for "web sources", well, these included the Glen Helfand article, as well as the Stretcher.org articles, which happened to be primary references on the subject. Peter G Werner 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failing GA

Hi,

I agree with the above editor's comments that this article is not yet at GA standard.

Points to resolve before renominating:

• The page needs to have a coherent structure using headings as specificed by MoS
• References should be placed using Inline citations - not just web links - this has been done correctly for one reference in the article already.
• In places the prose is not compelling. Consider: "Though this art movement is generally considered to have emerged in the early 1990s around a core group of artists who attended or were associated with San Francisco Art Institute during this time, the term "Mission School" was not coined until 2002, in a San Francisco Bay Guardian article by Glen Helfand". The "during this time" is very clumsy and the sentence itself is overly long.
• Hard to determine the stability of an article that was only created 2 days ago!

However, the article is good on the NPOV front and it is a good start, but I'm afraid on this occasion that it just doesn't cut the GA criteria.

Martin Hinks 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by CAMPSF

Aaron Noble was never considered part of "the 'Mission School' except for the article that appeared in Art In America. Wiki really needs to do a better job of its research before publishing!!! Likewise, Rigo23 was never considered a part of the Mission School except for the article by Glen Helfand. The best resource for defining THE MISSION SCHOOL is an essay that was written by Rene Pritikin for Amy Franchscini's book. Wiki should look into these before blindly publishing what you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMPSF (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 February 2007

Egads! How to respond to these comments!

First, such commentary belongs here on the Talk pages, not in the middle of a Wikipedia article where you placed it. Second, when dealing with Wikipedia disputes it helps to maintain a civil tone, which you clearly are not doing here. Also, "Wiki" doesn't research anything – Wikipedia is writen by its editors – people like you and me – using published sources as a basis.

As for "blindly publishing what you don't know", I happend to have written most of this article and I stand by what I wrote. Wikipedia is supposed to be be derived from multiple, non-trivial, published, cited sources and that's what I've done here. Yes, I've drawn heavily on the Glen Helfand article (he counts both Rigo and Aaron Noble as "Mission School" artists, BTW). It just so happens that he was the first person to publish the term "Mission School", and the overwhelming consensus of subsequent literature is that the term "Mission School" is something he more or less defined, for better or worse. (I am aware of Renny Pritikin's article – you should note that I've linked to it under "References".)

I'll note that Wikipedia is based on published sources rather than original research. From your username, I take it you have some kind of connection with Clarion Alley Mural Project. I also gather you have some kind of beef with Glen Helfand. That's a valid opinion and I'm sure you have valid "insider" info on the "Mission School", but without reference to published sources, your opinion that Glen Helfand is wrong is just that – one person's unpublished opinion. Peter G Werner 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kilgallengarage.jpg

Image:Kilgallengarage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mcgeegarage.jpg

Image:Mcgeegarage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nerihorse.jpg

Image:Nerihorse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)