Talk:Arts administration

Absurd opening sentence and general premise

The general tendency of this article is absurd. An article called Arts administration should be about arts administration, not about the college courses that teach you how to be an arts administrator. (Imagine if an article called Canadian literature began "Canadian literature is a college or university discipline which teaches people about the literature of Canada.") Almost this entire article is about university arts administration courses, not about the specific nature of the job and how being an administrator of a small and/or non-profit arts organisation is quite different from something that may appear to be superficially similar, e.g. event management. This article manages to be almost entirely irrelevant. I would rewrite it myself if I weren't busy working as an arts administrator. Lexo (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

Plenty of third party for profit links w/in the body content. This article is horrible! I'm going to add some CLEANUP!! tags to the main article... if it's not too time consuming. (208.70.93.174 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Citation Problems

Half of the citations used are broken links or just links to scam sites. There also needs to be more citations in general regarding all the information given. Turtlethatroars (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, the citation need improvement on more explanation information instead of some link to third party website.Jingw99 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is Poorly developed. I feel this article has the right structure and ideas, but it is executed poorly with not much direction. --BaileyNem (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This article still seems to have many issues with citation. Many citations still lead to links that do not work or take you to a page that seems unrelated/irrelevant. Upon reading earlier reviews this article has obviously undergone some heavy cleanup, but still needs a lot of work. --Tvmoradi (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem to have a point besides minutia

Soooo... a manager/management. I can sympathize with the need for capable administrators in organizations dedicated to the arts, but I have a sneaking suspicion the only reason this article exists is because it's a major in some fancy universities. As a quick check, I searched for "IT manager"... no article. Neither is better than the other, but why this needs to be an entire article in an encyclopedia is kinda baffling.

Writing Quality and Content

This article was far focused on universities that hold courses that teach arts administration, rather than informing readers about arts administration itself. The writing structure of the article was also hard to follow, along with complicated wording and sentences. I also found that this article has missing commas throughout. Kngyn4 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bloat and Poorly Written

There is a certain amount of repetition in this article, such as the information about Canada in the Government Funding and Granting Bodies section. Additionally, there are many sentences that require revision due to missing commas, typos, or incomplete clauses. — Irissedum (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Article evaluation

I think this article gives a decent basic overview of arts administration, especially for someone who does not know what the field is. However, it feels incomplete. A few parts seem vague and the article could be stronger if it had more support and a clearer overall direction. It's useful but it is definitely still a work in progress. ~~~~ 101Penguin (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)