Talk:Electronic Superhighway: Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii

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:Electronic Superhighway: Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 07:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review it. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• I don't think the coordinates are correct. They point to the southwest part of the museum, but the work is apparently in the Lincoln Gallery in the East Wing. My best guess is 38.897874°N 77.022332°W / 38.897874; -77.022332, but you may be able to improve on that.  Done
• The timeline in the lede isn't consistent. Has it been on display since 2002 or 2006?  Done
  • The first paragraph still says it's been on display since 2002, while the second says 2006.  Done
• images on screens implies static images - I would clarify that it's video clips.  Done
• I'm not sure "obscure" is the best word; the examples given later in the article all seem pretty clearly related.  Done
• to form → which form  Done
• It's worth a sentence about the pre-Smithsonian history - was it ever displayed prior to 2006, or was it hidden in his studio?
• It has become one... - this should be after the sentence detailing when it was first displayed.  Done
• is once again available: this should be reworded to match the Wikipedia voice - perhaps something like The museum underwent another renovation in the 2020s, with the work not available to view from 2021 to 2023.  Done
  • Hopefully the wording has improved. I'm unable to find the pre-Smithsonian history, only that it was made in one of his studios. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • @APK: If you're able, could you respond to each bulleted item with {{done}} or similar, and/or a comment, once you've addressed it? That will help me track everything. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
      • @Pi.1415926535: No problem. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Artist

• Were Paik's Fluxus works related to this work? If so, that should be mentioned in the article. If not, there's no need to mention it here.
  • He was a notable person in the Fluxus movement, but I can remove it.
    • I'll leave it up to you. It's a bit out of place because Fluxus isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, but certainly not worth holding up GA over.
• Probably worth mentioning what year he coined "electronic superhighway"  Done
• Typo in "television" in the final sentence.  Done

Design

• Use {{convert}} for unit conversions.  Done
• its total mass being → a total volume of  Done
• Some of these clips...: I would suggest Some clip subjects are commonly associated with the states, such as Idaho and potatoes.  Done
• Due to space limitations: This should move up to be the second sentence in the paragraph. Due to its small size... should be the third.  Done
• Paik was inspired...: run-on sentence; split or rework.  Done
• Per this fie, it looks like the CCTV represents DC. If any of the sources mention that, it's worth having in the article.  Done
• Simply the beginning of the sentence - something like Imagery Paik chose included The Wizard of Oz...  Done
• Use semicolons in the listing per the last example at MOS:SEMICOLON.  Done

Reception

• The quote is a bit on the long side; I would consider shortening it. It definitely should be moved after the other paragraph in the section.  Done
• I don't think "considered" is needed for its popularity - that's presented as fact in the sources.  Done

Acquisition

• I would split the first sentence into two, since it's about two separate ideas (the work's creation and Broun seeing Megatron/Matrix)  Done
• explained how great the work was → expressed her high opinion of the work (or similar)  Done
• The final two paragraphs of the first paragraph would fit better as the beginning of the second paragraph.
  • Sorry, I'm confused about this one.
    • The final two sentences, sorry. When the work arrived...from his installations would make more sense in the second paragraph that's about the reassembly, rather than in the first paragraph that's about the circumstances of acquisition.
      • Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks.  Done
• I'd rewrite the final sentence as something like Paik died in January 2006, five months before the museum reopened with Electronic Superhighway on display.  Done

Display

• The information about the archives acquisition and the 2012-13 exhibition seems only tangentially relevant to this work, and would be better mentioned on Paik's article. Unless there is particular significance to Park Geun-hye's visit (i.e, if it was seem as a particular gesture rather than an ordinary political activity), I don't think that needs mentioned in the text, though the image is fine.
  • It seems noteworthy because how many time does a head of state visit the museum?
    • I don't think it's terribly uncommon for visiting politicians to visit an exhibition of their country's art. Given that the museum visit seems to have been a photo-op for the economic talks rather than a significant gesture on its own, and that the exhibition was much larger than just this work, I don't think the visit is significant to this artwork itself. However, I don't think it's significant enough to hold up GA.
• The third paragraph is missing citations.  Done

Other

• Source 7 has a maintenance message that should be fixed  Done
• Standardize the date style on source 12  Done
• The current alt text mostly repeats the captions. Per MOS:ALT, it should describe the actual content of the image.  Done

Overall

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

---

Happy to pass this now. Good work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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:

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.