A fact from Section of Painting and Sculpture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 585 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The "Section" was a section of a project that isn't mentioned in the opening. A section of the Public Works Administration?--Wetman (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your question. "The Section" refers to "The Section of Painting and Sculpture." The shorthand may have been used to avoid confusion with this program was renamed as "The Section of Fine Arts," but the use of the shortened term may have pre-dated that renaming, which is why I didn't include that in the article. If I've been unclear, I hope you'll help me clarify--JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above was cross-posted to User talk:Wetman, where I responded
"Section of what?' is the question an ordinary reader would ask. That this is a section of some department of the United States govenment seems clear from the context, though not stated, as it should be. What department of the United States government? that's part of the introduction. Each Wikipedia article has to stand on its own. The reader needs to see what article is the umbrella that encloses this "section". A concise summary of this article should appear in the article within which it's nested. Looking in an index, how would a reader find material that was merely indexed under "section"? Does that help?
May I suggest this title, which fits as a sub-heading of New Deal, since GSA: Federal Art Programs website says that only some New Deal public art fell under the Works Progress Administration, where the ordinary reader would be most likely to look for it (and should be redirected, btw)? Surely the content that interests the reader is the art produced under the New Deal, no matter what section of the U.S. treasury paid the bills. Art under Roosevelt's New Deal is the social and cultural phenomenon that justifies an encyclopedia article. Doesn't this make sense? --Wetman (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. In fact I just put that link there. ;-)
Actually, I don't think changing the name/scope of the article reflects what I was originally trying to do. The point of this article was to focus on the Section of Painting and Sculpture (aka Section of Fine Arts) and not to try to encompass the whole range of New Deal public art programs (most of which are listed in the subheading of the New Deal article you cite). In creating the article, I was trying to treat the Section the same as the articles that already exist on other New Deal art projects, such as the Public Works of Art Project and the Federal Arts Project.
Note also that the Public Works Administration had a separate arts project. It was Treasury, not the separate PWA, that ran the Section.
I've rewritten the lead to make that correction, downplay the other New Deal art programs, and emphasize the competitive nature of the Section's commissioning process, which differentiated the Section from other public art programs of the era.
Thanks for re-editing: I was working a bit in the dark. My thought is always, "Wikipedia is only a reader's service: it's not even a secondary source." No one will ever find this article under its present title. With that in mind, the interested, broadly-prepared non-specialist looking for "those 1930s post-office murals", though given a "See also" at United States Post Office, will naturally approach through New Deal, where the section heading should be something like
Followed by text of a concise summary of all the sub-articles, which would include this one. Is the bureaucratic structure of the U.S. Department of the Treasury during the 1930s really the very best conceptual framework for the material in the present article? A question worth asking. That's all from me. --Wetman (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
