GA review

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

Nominator: Bubudu57 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these suggestions! I tried to remedy the issues you pointed to. As for sourcing each work's presence in the gallery, should these footnotes be added to the gallery section or somewhere in the text? Bubudu57 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either would be ok as long as the association between each gallery image and its reference is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done ! Bubudu57 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. To a first impression, this looks pretty good: an appropriate amount and organization of content, well written and thoroughly sourced, with sources appearing reliable. The only significant copying found by Earwig was a properly marked direct quote from the Partridge interview. The nominator is the main contributor to the article, and there has been no edit warring or other instability. As a long-defunct institution it is not a subject in much flux or need of updating. All images appear relevant, properly licensed, and properly captioned. The immediate issues that I see are:

  • The second paragraph of the lead, on how the gallery's collection was initiated and built, does not appear to summarize material from anywhere else in the article (WP:GACR #1). Everything in the lead should be a summary of later material, rather than consisting of unrepeated material.
  • The history section is long and could use being split into subsections of more manageable size (GACR #1).
  • The gallery of works in the museum is ok but could use bluelinks for artist names (when a link for the work itself is not available) to make it more clear that they have been selected as notable works and not just an indiscriminate listing (GACR #6). Were these works on permanent display or merely held in the collection? When were they acquired? Additionally, we need a footnote for each work documenting its presence in the museum collection (GACR #2).
  • The material about the Milwaukee Industrial Exposition Building appears overdetailed (GACR #3)
  • Many sources are unlinked and offline. That's not actually a problem with respect to the Good Article criteria, but it makes reviewing source quality and accuracy difficult. To the extent possible, can more links be provided?

Once these have been addressed, I can move on to a more careful source check. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source check for footnotes 1-16 (ending at Eastberg & Vogel 2013, p. 67):

  • [1-3], [6-7], [10], [15-16] offline, not checked
  • [4-5], [12] checked and ok
  • [9], [13] subscription-only, could not check
  • [8] is a magazine article, and should be formatted as {{cite magazine}} with the author, date, and magazine name, rather than as {{cite web}} (this goes beyond GA requirements, which require only that references are given in the proper layout). The GA requirements do however state that all facts sourced to it should be verifiable from it. It does verify that the Milwaukee Industrial Exposition Building was inaugurated in 1881 and modeled after the Philadelphia's Centennial Exposition, but it does not verify that the building was also modeled after Crystal Palace, and it says nothing about viability as a museum.
  • [11] "at the Milwaukee Club in 1883": source says 1884. "Nonetheless": nonetheless of what? "total cost for construction amounted to $115,000" not in source. "Over the next decades" cannot be in source because it was published before those next decades.
  • [14] does source the opening date on page 1 of the source. But it is also claimed to source the overseas hiring of Audsley, and that is on page 10, not page 1.

More later. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I revised or completed sources accordingly. Thank you! Some older quoted books are available via archive.org for keyword search (to the left), if you'd like to check the corresponding refs. You could also create a free account on archive.org to access the full books...
Hancock 1991: https://archive.org/details/homecomingartcol0000hanc/
Ward 1991: https://archive.org/details/americanfurnitur0000layt/
Mundy 1988: https://archive.org/details/1888fredericklay0000fred/
Schulze 2001: https://archive.org/details/buildingmasterpi0000milw/
Levy 2004: https://archive.org/details/famouswisconsina0000levy/
Albrecht 2006: https://archive.org/details/eerosaarinenshap0000saar/ Bubudu57 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the source check:

  • "at the Milwaukee Club in 1883": still not fixed to match source, which says 1884.
  • New ref [7] "History of Metcalf Art Collection": ok for Metcalf claim (I guess the Mitchell parts were in the other sources)
  • New ref [11] Beutner: I'm not sure what this is supposed to source. It doesn't match any of the previous text; it's largely about a collection of non-art.
  • [18] (was [16]), Opening of the Layton Art Gallery. Still has not fixed the page reference for the Audley hire (it's p.10, not p.1)
  • [19-20], [24-28], [31-33], [36], [38-42], [44-45], [47-53], [55-57], [59], [64-65] offline, not checked
  • [21] "New Wisconsin Architecture": used as one of several sources for a detailed description of the entrance and of which construction materials were used where. But the source only gives a vague description of the materials and a picture of the building drawn before it was constructed, useless for these claims. I don't think this source should be used if that is what it is to be used for. I hope the other offline source [20] is much more explicit.
  • [22] Here and there: ok
  • [23] "In and Around Milwaukee": used to source some sentences about Layton's art purchases, but appears not to mention Layton at all.
  • [29] "A Directory of American Museums": ok
  • [30] "The Layton Art Collection": sources works by Bouguereau, Tissot, and Johnson in inaugural gift. Illustrated by a reproduction of The Old Stagecoach (among other images in the eventual collection) but fails to source whether that specific painting was in the inaugural gift. Offline reference [31] is unlikely to fill the gap as it is about Bouguereau.
  • [34] "Layton Art Gallery Opened". does source the provenance, title, and artist of many (maybe all?) works in the initial collection, including The Old Stagecoach. Good reference.
  • [35] "Layton Pictures". ok, but with reference [34] present at the same point we wouldn't need much to be ok here.
  • [37] "Catalogue of the Layton Art Gallery." Used to source only the Trentanove sculptures. The reference lists the page number as 4. That is an index page that doesn't mention Trentanove. The actual page about Trentanove is page 6. It has a brief bio and then says that a "life-size marble figure" is in the collection, presented by Layton, and that The Last of the Spartans is in the collection, presented by William E. Cramer. Does not source that the first of these is a bust of Layton.
  • [43] Wisconsin Blue Book: sources centennial joint exhibit of contemporary art, but nothing about "public pressure for closer collaboration mounting".
  • [46] "West Facade Mosaic Mural": sources only "whom Saarinen selected to create a mosaic for the western facade of the building", but none of the rest of the text attributed to this source.
  • [54] Old Stage Coach: ok
  • [58] Fish Market at Ostend: ok
  • [60] The Last of the Spartans: good source, but we did already have a (not as good) source for the same work in [37]
  • (not about sourcing): the Layton School of Art section uses slanted quote marks rather than straight quote marks for the quote; see MOS:CURLY
  • [61] "Oral history interview": the quote is ok, but the text before the quote does not match what the interview. Our article says that Partridge and Frink met in 1915 at Milwaukee-Downer; this is not in the interview. Our article says that Partridge and Frink co-founded the school; the interview says Partridge founded it and Frink joined later (after "Gary Sinclaire"). Our article says that the school opened in 1920; that date does not appear in the interview.
  • [62] "Layton School of Art and Design Records": the 1920 date is here. It sources "Gerrit Sinclair" as being the first teacher hired, but not the 1921 hire date. Ok for the 1925 status of the school. Ok for most of the listing of notable faculty but not Faulkner and Sheffer. (There is also an offline source for this part so maybe they are from there.)
  • [63] Wisconsin Pride: this is where we find the information about Partridge and Frink meeting in 1915 at Downer. "arts and design to be considered on an equal footing" is uncomfortably close in wording to the source. Ok for art shows in support of the WWII effort, but does not source the more specific dates "between 1941 and 1945".
  • [66] "Charlotte Russell Partridge": ok for "Partridge and Frink were forced to resign" but not for Lewandowski taking over. I would normally ask for more information about why they were forced to resign, but the source says that information was unavailable to it.
  • [67] "Mandel's Baby Boomer Tower": ok
  • [68] this is offline, but I was skeptical that a source titled "Famous Wisconsin Artists and Architects" would talk about a failing art school moving to some no-name structure in Estabrook and then shutting down. I checked Google Books, which fortunately made page 141 available to me in preview. It says only that Guido Brink taught at the school from 1955 to 1974, and that he later founded MIAD. Which is to say that the two long sentences attributed to this source are mostly unverified by it, except for the two small parts that Brink was a former instructor and that he co-founded MIAD (but not when he did). There is indeed nothing here about the move and shutdown of the Layton school.
  • [69] "Jane Bradley Pettit Building": the article text "The institution settled in a renovated warehouse building named after..." appears to be inaccurate. The chronology is scrambled. It suggests that the building was renovated, and then named, and then the institution moved into it. But really: the institution bought the building, then renovated it, and then (?) renamed it.
  • [70]-[73] alumni: ok.

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of revising these references, thank you.
Quick note: you said "[23] "In and Around Milwaukee": used to source some sentences about Layton's art purchases, but appears not to mention Layton at all."
Layton’s purchases are indeed mentioned at the very bottom of the article, right above the title of the following article (“Near Neighbors”).
I will let you know when I have gone through all the other revisions. Bubudu57 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through another round of reference revisions and will let you tell me if things look right now. Thank you! Bubudu57 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be converging: I found only two remaining issues:
  • New reference "Milwaukee's Layton School of Art" for "In September 1920, they opened the lower level of the Layton Art Gallery for classes, officially establishing the an art school." The reference actually says the same thing as the interview, that Partridge alone founded the school, and that she was joined by Frink in running it only later. Also "the an": one article only, please.
  • "New reference "Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Cream City": this sources the use of cream brick but not the specifics of the portico. I guess that must be in the offline source? Anyway, the Google Books link goes to the wrong page: should be 31, not 28.
The new Riverwest currents reference is a good source for the 1970 move and 1974 closure. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these two issues, including the Google Books link to redirect to page 31 (did not realize it was tied to page 28, sorry). The offline source (the 2013 catalog) goes into great detail about the architecture and materials, indeed. Bubudu57 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All of my concerns have been addressed, so I'll pass this now without making more demands. Congratulations on the GA! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions! Bubudu57 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Layton_Art_Gallery
No tags for this post.