Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture)/Archive 1

Issues and errata

• Multiple published reports (particularly those from the Associated Press and others) have repeatedly claimed that the sculpture is in danger of collapsing. These claims contradict three major studies that have been published by conservators and engineers which state the opposite. According to experts, the sculpture is /not/ in danger of collapsing. For further information on the problem with this kind of reporting, see Knight, Los Angeles Times, September 19, 2013, who attempts to set the record straight. Many additional sources have also corrected these errors. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Issues with dates:
  • "In 1988, he created a two foot model of the sculpture and proposed his work to the Santa Monica Art Commission." Another source says this occurred in 1989.[1] Need to confirm. Sources get things wrong all the time. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Rivera 1990 solves the timeline problem by describing the complicated two-year approval process. It's easy to see why the sources were confused, as the timeline is incredibly complex (for a work of art). Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "His cartoon depicting the ending of the atmospheric nuclear testing moratorium in 1961..."
  • I'll need to look at the source again because this is ambiguous. According to FAS, the draft CTB was discussed in April 1961, but it was the Soviet Union who resumed testing in the atmosphere in September. Shortly thereafter, Kennedy and Macmillan proposed an atmospheric test ban which was rejected by Khruschev. It is unclear exactly what Conrad is referring to here, so further research is required. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Dates in the proposal section conflict with some sources. For example, a City Council Meeting report by Karen Ginsberg includes different dates for the time of the model display and final approval of the sculpture. Need to verify dates.

Peer review pending

Note: I've asked User:Mark Miller to do an informal peer review prior to submitting this to GAN. I know it's not ready and needs work, but I wanted to get the process started. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I will give a bullet list of recommendations of my peer review.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

• The lede could use a general edit for brevity and text flow. The first paragraph seems a little clunky and awkward. Specifically the description could be rearranged a bit to read a little better. but the over detail could be said a little plainer.
• The Background section begins like a BLP of the artist, it should begin with the work or piece that is the subject. I would move all the bio stuff elsewhere like a sub section "artist bio" to distinguish between the art here and the artist who also has an article. I would replace "Background with "overview" and start with something like:

The sculpture is based on a cartoon sketch by Paul Conrad.Conrad was the editorial cartoonist at the Denver Post beginning in 1950. It was at the Denver Post where his cartoons first touched upon the subject of peace and nuclear weapons. His cartoon depicting the ending of the atmospheric nuclear testing moratorium in 1961 was categorized by Gamson and Stuart (1992) as falling under the universal “Common Security” media frame popularized by the peace movement in the United States. These types of cartoons emphasized progress towards disarmament and “mutual cooperation, trade, cultural interaction, problem solving, and peacemaking” towards other nations, such as the Soviet Union.

And of course that could be cut down a tad, still.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Over all I think the issue is focus. The scope looks good. I would rearrange and cut some sectioning. Perhaps like:

1. "Overview" section with some introductory text explaining the relevance of the artist to this work. I would move
2. "Proposal" up to put in the Overview section as a sub section, I would just lose "funding" as a section altogether and merge the information into the "proposal" subsection. I would combine the "Location" and "Safety inspection" sections into
3. "Location and maintenance" and move all the bio information to a section at the end for
4. "Artist biography".--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good review. I'm confused about the "overview" section part, as I thought those had been deprecated in favor of reserving the overview for the lead. Has this changed? I just looked at the lead guideline and saw no mention of it, so it must have been removed from the guideline. It used to say "do not duplicate the lead with an overview section". Or at least I thought it did. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I was unaware of that, but it does explain the changes on several articles I have viewed. OK, I would suggest just sticking with the section header of "Background" instead of overview.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to start working on this tomorrow when and if I get the chance. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

References

To do

• Discuss the "bronze" problem  Not done
  • This needs to be addressed in the article. "It was supposed to have been made of bronze, which tends to require little maintenance and resists the elements over time. Instead, the piece was constructed with a stainless steel internal frame, a Fiberglas core and copper tubing..." (Gluck 2012)
  • No source has adequately explained why the sculpture was never made of bronze
• August 1, 1992, Dedication ("'Peace Day' Dedication for Conrad Work", Los Angeles Times; "SM peace day ceremony unveils Conrad's sculpture", Daily Breeze)  Done
  • Add speaker Kaz Suyeishi
  • Add sources (Sculpture made with peaceful designs, Daily Breeze, August 1, 1992; SM Peace Day ceremony unveils Conrad's sculpture, Daily Breeze, August 2, 1992)
• Art tradition (Paul Von Blum) [2]  Working
  • Public sculptures
  • Activist, progressive context of Santa Monica from 1960-1980 (ICF 2012)
    • ICF argues convincingly that this history is what led the city to accept the sculpture
      • Partly done.
    • Yet, the conservative shift in the 1990s is what led to the deaccessioning attempt
    • Celebrity advocates
    • Edward Ruscha, Norman Lear [3]
    • Advocacy Award for Rubin and Conrad.[4]
    • Role of Mr. Fish (Gardner 2013, etc.)
• Theme and relevance (Knight)[5]  Working
• Deaccession debate (Rohit 2012)  Doing...
  • Source to use: Gluck, M. (February 3, 2012). Can Paul Conrad's Mushroom Cloud Sculpture in Santa Monica Be Saved? LA Weekly. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
    • Added
• Expand landmark section. First public work in Santa Monica given landmark status (Bach 2012)
  • Partly done
• NAMTA source[6]  Doing...
• Obtain free license for "Save Chain Reaction" poster to upload from Mr. Fish?  Not done
  • Unlikely, but I will try. It's a great poster (and shows that Mr. Fish knows what he's doing)
• Location  Doing...
  • Add location map showing proximity to 1)RAND corporation, 2) Santa Monica Municipal Court, 3) Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, 4) Main St, 5) Olympic Blvd, 6) Pico Blvd, and 7) 4th St.  Done
  • Export function doesn't seem to work. Will need help from other editors to avoid having to use jpeg screenshot; prefer png
  • Original proposed location vs. present location. Later construction of RAND building and Scheer's commentary about its proximity
    • Done, but needs formatting and location/coordinate modification. Currently manually driven through superimpose template
• Check dabs:  Done as of October 9, 2014.
• Rewrite article:  Doing...
  • Merged funding into background (however, it could be moved elsewhere)
• Incorporate see also:  Working
  • Section for links not yet developed; will merge when done (if possible)
  • Partly done
• Checklinks and formatting:  Done as of October 8, 2014.