Talk:Dia Bridgehampton/GA2

GA Review

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

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)