Talk:Museum of Bad Art/Archive 1

April Fools' Day main page article?

There is some banter down at Talk: Featured article candidates that this is a contender for the 2009 April Fools Day main page article. As a longtime admirer of the Museum of Bad Art, I would be interested in working on this article, and I am inquiring if there are others who may be interested in an intense rewrite that will take place over the next couple of weeks. It would still have to meet the Featured Article Criteria. So...anyone? --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There appears to be no database information on "Museum of Bad Art" in CAMIO (Catalog of Art Museum Images Online), Bibliography of the History of Art (CSA), Art Index (Art Full Text and Art Retrospective), or Oxford Art Online. I find only one serious reference to MOBA in a journal titled Museums Journal from 2006. I will do my best to get that. It appears most of the information will come from magazines and newspapers.
• There are two books titled The Museum of Bad Art: Masterworks by Michael Frank and Louise Reilly Sacco and The Museum of Bad Art: Art Too Bad to Be Ignored by Tom Stankowicz (Author), Marie Jackson (Author). Not surprisingly, my library does not have these books. I can get them through Interlibrary Loan, which might take a week or two, or just buy the damn things through Amazon, which would take just as long. In the meantime, I would write from newspaper and magazine articles.
• We need to find out the copyright status of the images in the museum. Some of them should be in the article. Lucy is already, but Eileen should be, since it was stolen and $6 was raised as a reward for its return, and some other pieces.
• I would like to have images of the actual facility per Musee D'Orsay and Metropolitan Museum of Art. Does anyone know anyone who lives in Boston and can get these images? If not, can anyone do Flickr searches?
• More thoughts as they come... --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting here, the article doesn't have to be long... just comprehensive. Ceranthor 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this for my benefit because my articles tend to run so long that people fall asleep after the lead? Or was this just a general shoutout of guidelines to no one in particular? --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I first read about MOBA in Games Magazine probably between 1998 and 2000. It was an extensive article. Before I call Games to get a past issue, anyone have access to old copies of this? --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I live in Massachusetts, have been to both galleries of MOBA including the opening of the Sommerville branch, and a signed copy of "the Museum of Bad Art Masterworks" is in my humble book collection. I will add as much to the artical as i can... i am currently also working on a paper that is due tomorow, so i may not go quite at the speed you are looking for.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have images of the facility? If not, is it possible to get some within the next week or so? The safest way would be for you (or someone) to take pics of the museum's outer facade, interior structure, etc. I know it's a theater, but I think not only nonetheless, but any April 1 article on MOBA would surely deserve a discussion on the architectural highlights of the theater's basement. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Found5dollar, I will probably purchase both books for myself, but just FYI before you go much further, I suggest formatting the citations in a bibliography/reference format. We should place a section below the citations and list the books used in the article. When you cite from the book, it should look like <ref>Frank and Sacco, p. ?</ref> with the page number. Even though the subject is MOBA, the article must adhere strictly to the MOS. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations aer realy my down fall on Wikipedia. If you or some one could like give me a blank template for a book citation, i can fill it out. I have tried looking at all of the pages about how it is supose dot bre layed out and it just confuses me. Also, i may be able ot get a pic of the Sommerville theater, but i most likely will not be getting to the dedham one anytime in the next month. I know that there are tons of pictures on Flickr if some one els ewants to search there.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've purchased both books of the museum. Add what you can and I will format citations later. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Flickr Photos

Ok so the following pictures i found on flicker have the lisencing that is ok to up lead to Wikipedia. Which should be ad added ot the article?

the Fake security camera Louise Reily Sacco in the Dedham galery side exterior of the somerville theater somerville theater marque another view of somervile

there are also a bunch that are close to being able to be used but miss because there can not be derivative works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Found5dollar (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG...this article is going to give me an aneurysm. I think we should be able to use the first 4 of those images you listed. I'm rewriting some of it in a sandbox, here, but if you and others add lots to it, I'll incorporate all the changes to come to some kind of finalized product. I've emailed the museum, who admitted the article is not up to par, and should be getting a note soon from Louise Sacco regarding a list of better sources to use, as well as an answer on permissions for paintings. "Lucy" right now is... actually I have never worked with images in an art article. But I think it would help the understanding of the article to include "Lucy", of course, as well as "Sunday on the Pot with George", and perhaps 3 others. I like that "Eileen" is in one of the images above, and that's good. We may be able to get to GA by the end of the week. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool... ill just keep working here in the meen time. If we want any of the pictures, i already have an account on wikicommons so i can load them there.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just to let anyone know that is looking for pictures, i have discovered that there is another "museum" called the "Official Bad Art Museum of Art" or "O.B.A.M.A." It does not appear to have anything to do with this museum but does clutter up Flicker Searches.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources

• There's a mini-CV of Louise Sacco at this list of presenters.

*Bella English. "Doing a good deed with bad art" Boston.com February 8, 2009already used

• Sid Ross. "Pointless Pointillism" Brandweek November 27, 2000

Useful? LeadSongDog (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional or more complete:

• "The Museum of Bad Art has everything but the kitschin' sink". Chicago : People weekly. (October 16, 1995): 150 OCLC 91398872
• Galerie SAW Gallery. "The best of the the Museum of Bad Art". Ottawa, Ontario: Galerie SAW Gallery, 2006. OCLC 85224680
• St-Laurent, Stefan. "MOBA: The best of the the Museum of Bad Art = Les chefs-d'oeuvres du Museum of Bad Art". Ottawa, Ontario: Galerie SAW Gallery, 2006. OCLC 123477528
• Stankowicz, Tom, and Marie Jackson. "The Museum of Bad Art: Art Too Bad to Be Ignored". Kansas City, Missouri: Andrews and McMeel, 1996. OCLC 34640796 already used
• Frank, Michael J., and Louise Reilly Sacco. "Museum of Bad Art: Masterworks". Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2008. OCLC 182621558 already used

Possibly about a different museum:

• Kino, Carol. 2000. "Art: The Baddest of Bad Art - Now There's a Museum in New York Devoted to "Academic" Art--Sentimental, Critically Disdained, and Strangely Wonderful". The Atlantic. 285, no. 4: 115.

Fine lines between comic and encyclopedic writing

The attention paid to this article is dizzying. I have not experienced this pre-FA and I am unable to keep up with the copy edits, so I don't know who made the following...

I noticed some of the edits compromised what I thought were pretty damn funny ways to state things.

• "Or some famous person" in George's caption falls flat. Either John Ashcroft should be named or the statement should be removed. I liked it mentioning John Ashcroft. The alignment with the paragraph that mentions Ashcroft is not consistent between browsers, if that was the thought driving that edit.
• The sentence leading up to the mention of Norman Mailer was altered to allow a link. But the link now makes it seem forced, as if someone pried open a very funny sentence and inserted a link. Either Norman Mailer should be linked in the quote, or not linked at all, but lead-in that requires a link after "the image offers" should be removed.
• Ferrylodge, I noticed the hidden question about the end result. The end result was the painting. Is that not clear?

I feel guilty for wanting the article to be funny. I feel like it's POV to make it that way, but really...there's no other way to write this. This article wrote itself with all the ridiculousness about it.

I don't want this to sound like I'm nitpicking. I very much appreciate the attention and copy edits the article is getting. I consider it a well-written article if a few people laugh so hard they pee a little, then go off and think about concepts of beauty and ugliness. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this comment earlier. The caption for George is already very big, so I'd prefer just covering Ashcroft in the text, where it remains funny. If Ashcroft goes in the caption too, then I would think we should put Mailer in the Lucy caption (including a wikilink to Mailer in lieu of a link within the quote). I rephrased the bit about the end result.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

It seems a shame to have extensive discussion of Lucy far below where her image hangs in this article. Kind of like bad art!

Would it be taboo to not only include the present large image of Lucy where it is now, but also a thumbnail down with the discussion of Norman Mailer et al.? I have an idea how to make this work.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy is GFDL. Doesn't that allow us to crop some of it out? What about a head and crows/F16s shot? Though a closeup of Lucy would be frightening. --Moni3 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See what you think.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if legal, cropping's a bad idea. Composition is part and parcel of what makes a piece good or bad art. Messing with it distorts the information we present to the reader. Thumbnails are fine.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Stunningly simple logic, and quite appropriate for an article about art, even if it's bad. I was thinking about a highlight, similar to what was done in The Garden of Earthly Delights, where finer detail is not evident until a section is blown up for the viewer to see. --Moni3 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

IF we are doing this with Lucy, shouldnt it also be done another place in the article? perhaps a close up of George's non existant feet? --Found5dollar (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lucy With Trash.JPG

Lucy: rescued from the trash

I agree that cropping is a bad idea, so instead I added an outer frame. What do you think about it, LeadSongDog and others?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I tried just a simple thumbnail of Lucy, sans garbage.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP has now removed the thumbnail.[1] It seems like very poor writing to be discussing an image in detail even though the image is so far away from that text.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Although normally I wuold not favor cropping, I notice that MOBA has cropped this image.[2] So, we could do likewise, and blame them.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it! That's the cropping thing I was talking about...Jiminy, so many words to have so many misunderstandings. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question... with as much information as we have about "Lucy," and the fact that she is by far the star work in MOBA's collection... does she deserve her own page? We can condense alot of the information we have on her in the MOBA page and move the indepth coverage to a page purely about her. Just a though. I would be willing to do it if others feel it is called for.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay the way it is for now, since the article length isn't excessive yet.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

should we add any pictures of the exteriors of either theater MOBA is in? I feel that the exterior of the Somerville Theater is espicaly telling of what type of neighborhood the musuem is located in. If we do put one in, where in the article should it go?

Also, would a picture of a work rejected by the museum help the article at all? if so I have one. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

KafkaLiz is near Boston and she said she would try to get exterior shots of the Dedham Theatre this weekend. I would like to have an exterior to place at the top above the logo. Once I get the books I hope I can include commentary on a couple more works, and I will upload those. --Moni3 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Worried Guy, is a work there should totaly be some information on. It is one of their newest "signature" peieces. It was aquired through a trade on bARTerSauce.com, and was unvailed at the opening of the Somerville Galery. I would start some about it, but i am not sure where is best to. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, I included commentary on the two most commented-on pieces. Others were mentioned, and "Bone Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt" is still in the article in a hidden edit. I hope to expand it. "My Darlings' Chestnut Mare", "Think Again", and "Mama and Babe" are also good options because reliable sources have commented on them ("Mama and Babe" has a hand left unpainted as well). I don't think we should go overboard with commentary. The article needs a bit of subtlety after Cash Peters' "woman with armchair glued to her ass" comment. --Moni3 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

with the addition of even one more work in the artical, is there a call for a "Collection Highlights" or... er.... "Collection Lowights" section?--Found5dollar (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Besides the exterior, are there any requests for specific shots? I'll probably just take a bunch and then upload them for everyone's (cough) viewing pleasure, but if there's anything you'd really like (perhaps a clearer fake security camera shot?), let me know and I'll try to get it. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a picture of the Men's bathroom as well as pictures of the gallery would be great. Wide shots of the whole gallery if possible.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded this weekend's pictures to Commons. They and the other MOBA images there now have their own category. Hope they are of some use - the lighting was extremely poor, so a lot of the shots I took didn't come out very well. These are the best of the bunch. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice pics! I took the liberty of inserting one into the article. Seems like some of the other pics might present copyright issues.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Ms. Sacco had granted permissions on the MOBA images? Or was that just images from the book/website? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like one picture of the building should be enough in this article. Also, the front of the building ought to be facing toward the text, instead of away from the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't the pic of the building be in the info box? That is how it is in every other museum article i have found on here. Also, in the other picture of the building it is much easier to distinguish which building the picture is trying to point out. That is why I moved around the info box. I forgot to get rid of the other picture further down the page. If noone else objects, i will switch it back to my experiment in a little bit. --Found5dollar (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd still prefer it the way it is, and not just because the facade was facing away from the text.[3] Our article for the Tate in England has a similar layout, with the logo up top, and then exterior views of the different galleries later in the article.

It's true that most Wikipedia articles for art museums have an exterior view of the museum up top, but it's not an inflexible rule, as the Tate shows. Also see Musée d'Orsay in Paris, and Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But the Tate artical is a different animal. Each one of the individual tate museums are set up with a picture of the museum in the infobox exactly like how i am suggesting. If we are going to switch over to the Tate model, since there are technicaly two different MOBA galeries, that we would need to make individual pages for both of the galleries as well as one covering the museum on general. I still feel that having both a picture and the logo in the infobox fix all of these problems. --Found5dollar (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see File:MOBAfacade1.JPG at the top of the article in the infobox. I think the lead needs something more than the logo. --Moni3 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then fine with me, but I still prefer the Tate layout. Check out the various crops at File:MOBAfacade1.JPG to make sure you pick the one you like best. The pic is so unremarkable-looking that I thought it could just as well go later in the article, plus why pick Dedham instead of Somerville?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. What I especially like about the current layout (logo at top) is the obvious pun on MOMA. If it were up to me, I'd increase the pixel size of the logo to 250 from 200, and leave it at that.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily consensus, just my opinion. I'd like it to mirror other museum sites, but that's tough when they're all different. Plus, many April 1 readers, if it gets on the main page, will consider the article fake, probably until they get 2/3 of the way through. The building makes it seem a little less unbelievable, suspending the "Wtf is this a real place or not?" kind of enigma. I like the 2nd image from the top, btw. --Moni3 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't realized that people might think the whole thing is a joke. But a pic of some shabby movie theatre might not persuade the skeptics to shed their skepticism (especially since the pic does not include any sign for MOBA). In the first sentence, you might try something like, "The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is an honest-to-goodness private gallery whose stated aim is 'to celebrate the labor of artists whose work would be displayed and appreciated in no other forum'."

Not sure what you meant by "I like the 2nd image from the top, btw."

Oh, and fantastic article, by the way! (Even if the shabby building goes up top.)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include that it is a real place. The beauty is the puzzlement of readers. Check out the talk page for Ima Hogg last year, and the frequent "Is this real or not?" questions. This is a very comprehensive article on this museum. The article can't be winking at the reader; just tell it like it is. --Moni3 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll change "real" to "unusual" if no one objects or does so first.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it should say exactly what it said: it's a private museum. Not real or unusual, it just is. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph already says that the artwork is privately-owned. Saying that it's a "private gallery" is confusing. See art museum which says: "private galleries refers to the commercial enterprises for the sale of art." Is that really what MOBA is?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a picture of the Dedham Theater should go as the main picture in the infobox, seeing that that is the main, and original galery of MOBA. In my attempt of putting it there, I moved the logo to the bottom of the infobox so that it still has an important place in the article. While i know it changes what is officaly suposed to be in a museum infobox, it didn't look bad, and kept everything that should be in the infobox.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Would anyone object if we swapped out the Somerville security camera for the Dedham one? I think that the angle is better, and the text is easier to read. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Steps before FAC

I got one book and should get the other one within a couple days. Other than adding one or two other works and MOBA's commentary on them, I am trying to think of anything else that should be added before it goes to FAC. I agree that images of Ashcroft and Mailer should not be included in the article. The idea of a "highlights" isn't grabbing me right now. If people want to see more art, they should go to the museum, website or buy the books. An FA should motivate people to learn more on their own by giving them a very good foundation of knowledge to start on.

I also think the guideline of not linking in a quote is a bit ridiculous when it is blatantly obvious who they're talking about. I'll take responsibility for that linking and be a rebel. The MoS is just...wrong on this one if it forces awkward wording to avoid the straightest path to the target.

I do not know if two images of Lucy will fly through FAC, but I'll leave it in until someone opposes it.

So, my master plan (such as it is) right now is to sit on the article for a few days, to prevent poor judgment due to haste. I'll go through more sources, including radio ones, add one or two more artwork commentaries, then see if we can place this at FAC Sunday or Monday.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that there is no article on "ugly", on a subsection in Physical attractiveness. Here's beauty. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Faint heart never won fair lady, so go for it. Just one thing though, the article's kinda hard to review right now because it's changing so quickly. I'd be inclined to wait for a day or two after it's stabilised before going to FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another good reason to wait a few days. I agree. That way, everyone who has had a hand in tinkering with it can get comfortable in its format before it is nominated. --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An idiosyncrasy of mine: I loathe GoogleBooks as a citation. I can barely deal with them as it is, and grumble and throw things when in mid-paragraph it shows up to say the next 60 pages are not viewable. Before the citations go to FAC, I'm going to give them one last polish and remove all reference to GoogleBooks. (Imagine me saying this in a more temperate manner. It's probably coming out a lot stronger than...no it's not..I hate GoogleBooks.) --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I put in some links to Google Books, without explicitly mentioning Google Books. Is that okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I find GoogleBooks very handy, for giving me an idea of whether it's worth getting hold of the actual book or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I like ISBNs, OCLCs, etc. Lots of ways to find the content.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said it?

I'm not a big fan of including quotes in the text without indicating in the text who said it. In the first sentence of this Wikipedia article, it says MOBA was established "to celebrate the labor of artists whose work would be displayed and appreciated in no other forum". Who said it? If we don't want to attribute the quote in text, then let's re-phrase in our own words. WP:MOSQUOTE says: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary for quotations from the subject of the article or section." So, attribution may not strictly be required, but still I'd prefer it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sacco and Frank said it in the introduction to the Masterworks book. It's a good point. Let me think how to say it without making it too chunky in the first sentence. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that they are the director and curator respectively, why not:

“ The museum's permanent collection includes five hundred pieces of art which management characterize as "Too Bad to be Ignored", 25 to 35 of which are on public display... ”

or something similar? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking Norman Mailer

WP:MOSQUOTE says: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." I fix.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. I'm claiming an exemption in this case. I addressed this above. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1793–1999

It seems there's an entire series of History of Dedham articles. Surely MOBA should figure in somewhere!LeadSongDog (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Security cameras

The text says that the sign says: "Warning. This gallery is protected by fake video cameras". However, the image says: "BEWARE. This gallery is protected by fake security cameras". Maybe the wording of the sign changed after it was initially posted.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. That is why it is necessary to have the caption for the image include the Somerville Theatre. The source is too early to be about the Somerville Theatre. What is quoted is accurate to the source. I figure that wording is what is in Dedham. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nipple spotted on Farah Fawcett poster, President Carter calls for calm

Headline from The Onion.

We have an exciting and sexy article here, that is going through lightning fast changes. Let's hold off on major structural changes, sentence rewriting, and anything else that's not immediately necessary for a few days, just to give it some stability. I'll add some (1 paragraph, a sentence here or there) material over the next 2 days, but let's hold off on making the article bolder, or trying to be funnier for now. It's just about there.

Lennie petted the mouse so much he killed it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I petted the mouse a little more, but gently. "Lennie's a God damn nuisance most of the time, but you get used to goin' around with a guy an' you can't get rid of him."  :-) I'm all through now. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to pet it for fear of rabies.... but can we PLEASE call the section "Collection Lowlights" instead of higllights? *makes pouty face*. --Found5dollar (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts before nominating for FA

This will be the first time I will nominate an article with multiple co-nominators. I have nominated with one other before, but he was a copy editor, and left all the content decisions to me. These are my requests based on the 12 previous FACs I have gone through, as well as the dozens I have reviewed.

First, I would never recommend anyone nominate on a time constraint. It is very foolish and stressful. But here we are.

• As soon as the article is nominated, leave it as it is. No more tinkering. Some helpful editors will copy edit what they see needs fixing. It happens, so take each into consideration when/if it happens.
• Whatever editors remark on the article, do not be argumentative. Thank all of them for their time. No matter how rude you perceive their oppose or other commentary, engaging in useless arguing will delay the article's promotion for days or weeks.
• If editors ask for changes, wait at least an hour. 24 hours is warranted for big changes. Log off, read an unrelated magazine article, play Guitar Hero, look at trees or whatever, then come back to see if the article actually needs it. If in doubt, wait. Discuss it here at the article talk page.
• If an editor asks for changes to a portion involving a source you have not read, don't make the changes. Wait for someone who is familiar with the source.

• Please remember, getting the article promoted should be second to having an accurate, professionally-written, comprehensive article. I think it is already accurate, professionally-written, and comprehensive. If it is not promoted, then ah well. We will live. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All good advice, Moni3. But I'm kind of embarassed to be listed as a co-nominator, since I hardly did anything, except be an officious intermeddler.  :-) This is 99.999% not my article. It really did brighten my week though!Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gardner

Can we say "that occurred earlier in the decade" instead of "that occurred a year earlier"? The Gardner theft was in 1990. Maybe we should also remove the web site at the bottom of the infobox since it's redundant. If the image layout is a problem, perhaps we could remove subheadings for particular pictures, and break off the section on "Common themes and interpretation" to its own section (I'm the culprit who inserted subheadings for individual paintings). Also, the word "Motifs" might be a better term than "Common themes," and might impress the hell out of everyone too.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources suck sometimes. This is the fun of using 50 newspapers, and why history is so messed up. The source said it was a year or two earlier. Now it's ten?? Argh. Yeh, I'll fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I've heard of people "having" standards, but not "holding" standards (this article says "holds rigorous standards"). This is a very minor point, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the images down slightly to take care of the WP:MOSIMAGE issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Too Bad to Be Ignored"

This phrase is used in the lead. It was mentioned at the FAR that perhaps no capitalization is needed. Here's a google news search for "too bad to be ignored" and "MOBA", and it does seem that it's usually not capitalized. It also seems like the word "art" ought to be included within the quotes.

P.S. We're in the big time now. The Fat Man has arrived.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I read. It looks like we're mixing up a slogan they use ("Art too bad to be ignored") with the title of a book they publish (The Museum of Bad Art: Art Too Bad To Be Ignored). In both cases, "art" is included in the quotation. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bella English article in the Boston Globe refers to the title-case version as a slogan, while the Carey Goldberg article in the NY Times used sentence-case for the book's subtitle.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MOBA's logo uses all lower case. But elsewhere they capitalize the first letter of each word, while also giving the thing in ALLCAPS. So, we're pretty safe. I don't know what the cited source (Nancy Walkup) does, but it can't hurt to be consistent between the infobox and the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Psychological study

The following excerpt is from a source that hasn't (yet) been cited in this Wikipedia article, though a companion article by the same authors is currently cited in this Wikipedia article:

Nordgren, Loran and Dijksterhuis, Ap. “The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking Too Much Reduces Preference Consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research (December 22, 2008).

Experiment 2

In the previous experiment we demonstrated that a deliberative approach can decrease the consistency of one’s preferences. This finding provides initial evidence for the benefits of a nondeliberative processing style. One limitation of this conclusion might be that the consistency gained by a nondeliberative approach comes at the cost of some other aspect of the evaluation, such as the accuracy of the judgment. To address this issue, we asked participants to evaluate the quality of paintings. Half of these paintings are considered to be of the highest quality (they belong to the Museum of Modern Art in New York [MOMA]), and half are considered to be of the lowest quality (they belong to the Museum of Bad Art in Boston [MOBA]). This design enabled us to assess both the consistency and the accuracy of participant’s preferences.

Methods

Participants. Seventy-three students (53 women and 20 men) participated for course credit or for money (7 euros).

Procedure. Participants were asked to rate eight paintings, four high‐quality, MOMA paintings, and four low‐quality, MOBA paintings (paintings were downloaded from the institutions' respective Web sites). As in the previous experiment, participants rated the paintings once at the beginning of the experimental session and again at the end of the experimental session (approximately 50 minutes later). Additional paintings were included at both time points in order to mask the purpose of the experiment. The instructions for the deliberators and nondeliberators were modified from those in experiment 1….

Preference Accuracy. We next examined whether, collapsing across conditions, participants could distinguish between the quality of the MOMA and MOBA paintings. Participants were able to differentiate between the two types of paintings, as they rated the MOMA paintings to be of higher quality than the MOBA paintings …. Yet crucially, deliberators did not rate MOMA (high-quality) paintings as more attractive … than nondeliberators…. Likewise, deliberators did not rate MOBA (low-quality) paintings as less attractive…. In fact, to the extent there is any difference at all, the nondeliberators appear to be more accurate in their evaluations. Taken together, these findings suggest that not only does a nondeliberative approach lead to more consistent preferences, but it does so without sacrificing the accuracy of the judgment.

I forked over $10.00 for this. Do you think there's anything here worth including in the Wikipedia article, Moni3?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With much guilt, I owe you $10. I had the article, attached to another by the staple. I remembered seeing it, printed it, then promptly forgot it as I have been shuffling all the articles for this one. Hope the additions tell the tale. --Moni3 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the $10, it was only my retirement savings.  :-) And thanks for editing the section. 'Tis not for me to judge (that's for Sandy and the Fat Man). But it looks good.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me that I have my retirement with AIG. Or did. I am not strong enough to inquire how deep it is in the toilet. What a cheery thought... --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people need cheering up around now, and your wonderful article will come in very handy. And I'm not kissing ass either! (If I wanted to do that I wouldn't have driven you nuts already with my edits.)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

U2

So I just heard on the news that U2 is playing tonight at the Somerville Theatre where the second branch of MOBA is located.... cool hu?

I wonder what Bono thinks of the art by the bathroom?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blurbs

File:Lucyflowers.jpg

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA), is a private art museum with two branches located in Dedham and ... wait a minute. Did someone paint that? My stars, that is the worst thing I have ever seen. Is that really a painting? Is she sitting? Half of her looks like she's dancing and the other half ... um. Somerville, Massachusetts. It was, ah, established in order to showcase ... Where is her left breast? I don't even think I want to know. Why would someone be seated in a big red chair in a field of flowers? Is she dancing in those monstrous orthopedic shoes? What? Oh! At any rate, MOBA was started in 1994 by an antiques dealer, who... Seriously, someone has got to tell me what is going on with that sky! Is she dancing in front of a nuclear apocalypse, while clutching a fistful of daisies with her inhuman vise grip? Is she Satan? Ok, hold on. I got it. I got it! .. The museum has strict standards for art they will accept: works must be... What are those behind her head? Birds? Military aircraft? What does all of this mean? Why am I hypnotized by the updraft in her skirt? (more….)

File:Lucyflowers.jpg

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA), is a private art museum where the advertisements sagely note "it's not the artists who are tortured". Located in Dedham, Massachusetts and nearby Somerville, MOBA has a 500-piece collection of art so hideous that it defies all logic explaining why someone would endeavor to create such awe-inspiring monstrosities. Though it does not aim to mock art, its visitors often have no compunction doing just that, particularly when faced with an image of Latoya Jackson holding the disembodied head of a horse. A strikingly rendered painting of what surely must be John Ashcroft in a diaper prompts many patrons to contemplate the mysteries of the human inclination to create. Its signature piece astounds all who gaze upon it: an elderly woman who appears acutely constipated while both sitting and dancing in a field of daisies during a nuclear holocaust. Other notable images include a reclining nude with hypnotizingly hirsute armpits, a beret-sporting empress eating a chocolate chip cookie, a cross-gendered Mona Lisa (astutely titled Mana Lisa), and a fusion of malformed yellow-eyed dog and ski slope; many pieces are found in the garbage or local thrift stores, and others are donated. One was given to the museum by an artist's mother, who joyfully handed over the only painting left behind after a thief absconded with an art class' drying assignments. Curators attest a certain level of atrocity is essential for an artwork to be included into MOBA. Since its inception in 1994, it has touched the heart of what is repulsive in many patrons, becoming an astonishing success and launching discussions of what such horrors say about an art community so drunk with power they acclaim similarly enigmatic "legitimate" masterpieces and value them in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two of its works have actually and inexplicably been stolen but were so repugnant the burglars brought them back. The Museum of Bad Art endures as a monument to innovative failure and aesthetic incompetence. (more….)

FYI: info is accurate to sources, if not quite the article itself. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of these two approaches, I prefer the second. I think a more deadpan, less effusive tone might improve the humour though. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lucyflowers.jpg

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is a private museum where the curators claim, "it's not the artists who are tortured". It has two branches, one near the men's restroom in Dedham, Massachusetts and another between both the women's and men's rooms in nearby Somerville. As a monument to innovative failure and aesthetic incompetence, its permanent collection hosts 500 pieces of the most hideous visual improprieties mankind ever knew. Visitors often find MOBA's art so hilarious that they are unable to refrain from laughing aloud, prompting them to go to more traditional museums and scoff at what the highbrow set thinks is splendid. The museum started in a pile of garbage, when an antiques dealer found a frightful rendering of an elderly choleric woman sporting an updraft in her skirt in front of a nuclear holocaust. Captivated, he shared it with his friends who suggested they build an entire gallery upon the theme of art so monstrous it is impossible to look away. One such piece that has become iconic features John Ashcroft in a diaper. One artist's mother donated her daughter's painting after it was the only one left behind when her art classroom was robbed. Mysteries arise from many pieces, such as why someone would endeavor to paint a hula skirt-wearing weiner dog who juggles bones. The collection has remarkably low standards: any accepted work of art must be hypnotizing in its awfulness and much like pornography, the curator knows bad art when he sees it. Many artworks are improved by dirt and mildew picked up from the trash, after which they are appreciated by gallery patrons who gaze upon them while indulging in the choice refreshments of Kool-Aid and Cheetos. (more….)

Sections with the deadpan tone I think works include "The museum started in a pile of garbage", "The idea was so popular that the art collection moved to a local restroom to get regular visitors", "John Ashcroft in a diaper". It needs that understated this-is-too-absurd-to-be-true quality, and perhaps less phrases that make it sound plausible (or only have them towards the end of the blurb). The reader should go through the steps 1) that's impossible 2) oh that's right, it's April Fools, 3) hey, it's actually real. The key to this step is the "that's impossible" part. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, is it okay to include info that is accurate to sources, even if it's not in the article itself? That seems like a threshold question that we need to resolve as soon as possible. I think it's okay, although that's not the approach I used below.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about whether the blurb can contain information that's not in the article, but I'd say it's normally avoided. It might be best if this blurb sticks to what's in the article, not only because it's the usual approach but also because the seeming "hoax" in the blurb is funnier when you read the article and find that the details are real. There's an interesting discussion of last year's April 1 featured article in the Signpost. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was written for April 1. Essentially, the blurb is going to sell it. If I have to change the article to include what is in the blurb, I'll do it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The first line's been bothering me for a while. "The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is a private museum.." Do we really think readers all have memory problems? Perhaps "The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA), where the curators..." might be cleaner. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I malign my readers' memories, but that the name says what it is. I do recognize that I get so locked into the way I think I cannot see other ways to state what I'm trying to say. Your way works just as well. --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No intent to imply malignancy, though there was a small doubt as to whether it was intended as humour, as in "the department of extra redundancies department". ;-) LeadSongDog (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense was taken. I have to admit, though I am a hoot and a holler and can make people urinate on themselves from laughing too hard, such a thing must be completely spontaneous. The pressure to return back to the blurb is like planning a sexual encounter for six months. Not sexy. I asked my brother, the funniest person I know, to look at it and he said Ima Hogg's blurb wasn't funny (I thought it was). The Fat Man, who wrote Ima Hogg's blurb last year is unavailable for this year's lampoon. My own crushing perfectionism tells me that if my blurb is not mentioned in at least four newspapers that I am a miserable excuse for a human who is wasting good carbon material that could be used as fossil fuels. I think I just made myself urinate... --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it has to be funny so much as it has to be unbelievable. On April 1, a lot of people are going to be told that they have spiders crawling up their collars, which isn't particularly funny in itself; it's the person looking down for the spider that's funny! Anyway, you're making fine progress. I would leave out Ashcroft unless you'd like to work in a Democrat somehow (e.g. Mailer). Everything's got to be 100% true, by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The comedic success of the Ima blurb was not so much derived from silly language or "jokes", but from the irony of selectively describing a respectable, dignified person as something ridiculous in addition to the deliberate, sincere confusion it imparted as to whether it was a joke or in ernst. Perhaps the opposite could be employed for MOBA? Unlike Ima, the MOBA is, in actuality, ridiculous; perhaps, therefore, a blurb (mis)representing the MOBA as sophisticated and upscale would be worth trying? This approach would not require "being in the moment" to be funny and might save Moni from having to Scotchguard her furniture. Эlcobbola _talk 19:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that part of Ima's humor was the destruction of serious context. MOBA's serious-sounding art commentary is truly hilarious. We could rival that, or try another approach, such as the interruption of encyclopedic tone in the first go up there. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there are oh so many ways to be destructive. The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is a fluffernutter dispensary... Эlcobbola _talk 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

File:Lucyflowers.jpg

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is an esteemed institution of cultural edification dedicated to featuring the finest artworks provided in Boston-area refuse. The museum's stated aim is to take the sufferings of the artists featured within and pass it along to its patrons. With 500 works in its collection, MOBA eschews the conventional methods of artistic success, instead focusing on frank emotional expressions executed with astonishing technical defects. Started in 1994 by art aficionados as a movement to honor creative misadventures, it has since grown to a basement of a ramshackle theater in Dedham, Massachusetts and another in nearby Somerville. The museum's standards are exclusive; works must be extraordinarily compelling, portraying a sense of mystery often unable to be explained by the artists themselves. Notable artistic achievements include the truly enigmatic rendering of intermingled contexts of an unpleasant elderly woman seated—yet also light-footed—in her transcendent dance before an apocalyptic sky, titled Lucy in the Field With Flowers. An image that has become iconic in Boston's rich artistic tapestry, Sunday on the Pot with George offers patrons numerous questions about who the corpulent man may be, and why he is depicted at his toilet footless, as he stares at the viewer beseeching for an answer himself. The questions raised by the collection at MOBA are transferred to more staid and less daring galleries. The recurring motifs in the Museum of Bad Art and its various associations with the byproducts of sewage delight its visitors at every turn and merely hint at the intrigue and wonder each art enthusiast may find in its stellar collection. (more….)

I read through all of each suggestion. My favorite style is #2, the irreverent style. Last year's blurb needed to have a more serious tone because it was a serious, yet unbelievable, topic. This article is a hilarious topic and it deserves a irreverent style. Royalbroil 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The above blurbs are pretty clever and funny, but none of them are appropriate for our purposes. We can't say things like "art so hideous that it defies all logic...", "the most hideous visual improprieties mankind ever knew", or "an esteemed institution of cultural edification", because they aren't, strictly speaking, true. Ferrylodge is correct, the blurb isn't supposed to be funny; it's supposed to be unbelievable. So our goal really isn't to be funny, it's to trick the reader into disbelief. The joke is that it's all real. So everything said has to be strictly factual. -kotra (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an Ignore All Rules scenario in my opinion, so I'm not persuaded that we're not allowed to do one thing over another. I'm not sure we agree on what the purpose of the blurb for article is for April 1, so maybe that is why I am having such difficulty providing a sufficient blurb. Is such a thing written policy or guideline? However, what is missing, in the 20 people I have asked, is an emphatic "That's it!" reaction. I haven't got it. No one can tell me how to get it. So? --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any rules to ignore here.  :) But if IWUZYOO, I would try to focus on fooling people, while actually being totally accurate. The "fool" part comes from "April Fools Day", and the accurate part comes from Wikipedia's mission. YMMV.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So the goal is not humor? Why not just run the normal blurb then? The article itself is fantastically absurd. What is it going to take to direct attention toward this article and cause or top the stir from last year? --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though the lead should be absurd, but still compltly truthful, much in they way Ferrylodge explained. The first line could be something like ""The Museum of Bad Art" is a museum dedicated the preservation of Art that would not be collected byanyother museum or collection due to its awfulness."--Found5dollar (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think "...dedicated to featuring the finest artworks provided in Boston-area refuse" is a very good line. One of the problems I'm having is that the blurbs seem too embellished and come across as being "promotional" (i.e. in terms of language) or silly (as opposed to funny). In that regard, I suspect I agree with Kotra, if I understand his/her concern correctly (e.g. "The museum's standards are remarkably exclusive" is an unnecessary WP:PEACOCK due to the embellishment). The Ima blurb, alternatively, read as being deadpan and manner-of-fact. I'm obviously approaching this from the direction of doing an Ima-esque blurb, which people may or may not want to do (and to which I'm not married either); I just wanted to offer input as to why they aren't clicking for me. Remember, too, that past April 1 TFA's have had normal blurbs and have instead relied on "odd" topics for the comedic effect. Эlcobbola _talk 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the wording is over the top in this one, but again, I started to approach this to rival Ima's blurb. I don't think we can do that, so seriously, I will write anything in any format as many times as necessary but I need to know what direction to go in. I don't think it should be a silly blurb to contrast a serious article like Ima Hogg. So what is the goal? Pranking people? Making them laugh with the blurb or letting the article do that? If all those peacock terms were removed, would it be perfect? Don't let my panic here turn you off... --Moni3 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, removing peacocks won't make anything perfect, as it is just one of several issues; one I bring up (or reiterate, as the case may be) because I think the end result would be more successful if it achieved its goal while still playing "within the rules". Again, that presupposes a more serious approach and isn't an issue if we're going the IAR silly route. Эlcobbola _talk 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other thoughts:

• Write the blurb as if you were writing it for the failure article but have it link, instead, to MOBA (e.g. "Failure refers to...")
• Write a terrible blurb (i.e. bad blurb for bad art); run on sentences, awkward/unintelligible phrasing, bad grammar, etc. (yes, I realise MOBA works have artistic merit, so the "badness" isn't really going to be apples to apples). Эlcobbola _talk 18:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lucyflowers.jpg

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA), is a private art musuem with a stated aim to pass along the sufferings of the artists to its patrons. Started in 1994 by an antiques dealer who found its first painting in a Boston-area garbage can, soon it grew in popularity enough to warrant its own viewing space in Dedham Massachussettss Masa Mass and another in nearby Somerville. The museum excepts woorks seriously rendered but yet they have significant flaws and defects. Curators state they are not interested in art that is boring or kitsch they often accept donations as well as finding art in thrift stores and the trash also. Artists who admit to having works in MOBA's collection often are pleased by the attention, and the msuesum has earned enough attention for making light of the art community that it has caused analysis attention on why traditional museums and galleries have the authority to determine what is good art and what is bad. MOBA hosts shows to highlight relentless creativity in people whose emotions often do not match their skills. The Museum of Bad Art's co-founder has stated the museum, which frequently allows artists to express themselves without fear of rejection by the traditional art community while allowing patrons to laugh at the final product, is a monument to failyure. (Just read it.)

Let's see if I can make Tony1's head explode. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor Tony. I like it, but will it fly with Raul, et al.? Эlcobbola _talk 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another version

I just wrote this off the top of my head, purposely without reading the two blurbs above. So, if there's anything worthwhile in the following, feel free to combine it with what's above:

The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is conveniently located in the basement of a Massachusetts movie theatre, next to the lavatory. The art is very bad, and burglars have even returned stolen paintings. Art critics particularly abhor the painting of "the old woman with an armchair glued to her ass" who has "Norman Mailer's head." Then there's the middle-aged, mostly nude man who sits and sags in another portrait rendered by a pointillist impressionist painter (critics speculate the artist learned about pointillism by watching too much television, up close). Visitors also recoil from MOMA's depiction of a dog in hula skirt juggling bones. Sometimes compared to the atrocious films of Ed Wood, the repulsive MOBA gallery is the antithesis of the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), and detailed psychological research proves it. Admission, of course, is free.

Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I've read the first two blurbs. Very good!Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good, but the main page blurb should have some resemblance of a legitimate article, and all the facts need to be correct. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 as an example. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little bit. Everything's factual as far as I can tell (and accurate to the article itself!).  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sound track?

Should there not be a recorded version of this article too? Something in suitably dulcet tones would seem appropos. Could be overlaid with some background violin sonata and occasional flushing sounds, perhaps as end-of-section punctuation.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Kee kee. Lulz. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are loads of background sound options in commons:Category:Cello_sound. I've tagged (above) for Spoken Wikipedia. The timescale may be a bit of a challenge though. :-) LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you care if you only get a straight reading? The file would be released into the public domain, so you could feel free to do whatever you want with it....Vulture19 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please! It's a necessary first step anyhow. Sfx can always be added afterwards. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a read tomorrow. I'm thinking it will be MOW-ba, though if anyone else prefers different pronunciation (MOB-a?), let me know. The first fits my regional accent better (western NY). Vulture19 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's MOE-ba, but I suppose the source on the would be MOBA itself. Wanna call them? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I get too far into this, this is the intro. I can absolutely assure you that, if you don't like my reading or my voice, I will take zero offense. Let me know if I should continue, if you hear any strange pronunciations (somewhat common for me), or if you have any criticisms/insight. Again, I can assure you, as long as you're civil, I can't be offended by your comments. As a side note, I have questions about the license. I am saying I am the creator of the content, and therefore releasing it into the public domain. However, since I am reading from the article, is there another license that I need? Vulture19 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! I should have realized that the straight read is exactly what is needed. No music, and we'll save the flush for the very end! LeadSongDog (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done, and sorry to suggest you should do it again, but I heard the 2nd mention of Scott Wilson's name as "Williams" and I realized after multiple edits to the lead that Jerry Reilly's name had been removed and I had to add a quantifier to explain who Reilly was. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No worries with critique's - if I didn't want them, I wouldn't ask! OK, I will go ahead and give it a read, and probably post by completed section as they get done. Combining them at the end won't be difficult, or, of convention allows, maybe a file for each section? and I'm glad I didn't attempt a Ben Stein-ish/bored tour guide read....

Look for results over the next couple of days, unless I get real inspired and do it tonight.Vulture19 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoken articles subsection

OK, I've recorded the History section. I haven't adjusted levels yet. If you hear anything off, let me know. I can probably easily enough make small corrections if you give me an approximate time mark for it. It may sound just a little choppy unless I do a re-read. Pay close attention to cat meow's. I think I got them, but the buggers have been going crazy today. I also isolated the text message alert (Pac-Man dying), which if I get enough odd ones I'll compile to a bloopers track. I am concerned about my Sacco and Brandeis pronunciations.

I've also re-read and merged to mono the intro section (all will be mono, I only have the one microphone.)

Oh, one other thing. It is far easier for me to read something like the stated aim of MOBA is "to put up art" as the stated aim of MOBA is to "put up art". If I miss one (because I re-record those about 5 times each), can we just change the text? Thanks.

• Intro
• History
• thefts
• Collection Standards

I'm tired, more later....

Vulture19 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Collection Highlights

After this I have one more to read (and will probably complete tonight). Given that I am self (under) employed, but actually have some work later this week, please comment on errors immediately, and then let me know:

• Are the levels OK? It is easy enough to amplify, and I will probably do that to the entire article before posting final version
• Do you want separate files for each section, or should I combine them into one?
• If music or sound effects are desired, point me to a public domain (or similar license) file. I think I can bring in just about any format, and overlaying it shouldn't be too difficult.

Thanks, Vulture19 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FINAL SECTION

Influence

I am concerned about this one. Difficult read for me, I may give it another crack. Vulture19 (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Worst case scenario

Here is a completed file for use. Vulture19 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

V19, you are a hero! Will give it a listen tonight if time permits.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounded great to me, though there seemed to be a minor glitch with "Roslindale". I'll defer to the locals on names. Levels seemed fine. Thank you so much!LeadSongDog (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FA blurb

Based on the above suggestions, I've taken my whack at the final draft. I've put it up in the usual place (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009) but left it unprotected. Feel free to adjust it, but bear in mind that it's already longer than I prefer. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Mona Lisa of Bad Art" referent doesn't appear in the article, so is not referenced. Better fix one way or the other.LeadSongDog come howl 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. At times I have to actually be productive at my job, and for some reason it's gah!!! I even split an infinitive! I'll work on it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Job shmob. Just work on Wikipedia, and don't worry about your job. It's not like jobs are precarious these days due to a recession, or anything!Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the one on the FA page and i realy like it. it is irreverent and funny and would definatly make people click on.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Found5dollar.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)