Fort Towson

	Collections Care Start‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Collections Care, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Collections CareWikipedia:WikiProject Collections CareTemplate:WikiProject Collections CareCollections Care articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation science (cultural heritage). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619183322/http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/main_e.aspx to http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/main_e.aspx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615055634/http://www.icr.beniculturali.it/ to http://www.icr.beniculturali.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Space to discuss structure Froselong (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

As far as structure goes, the outline I have in mind includes 4 main sections (Introduction, History, Fundamentals [different name maybe?], Research) Within Fundamentals we will cover Material Properties, Mechanisms of Deterioration, and Tools. Tools can be further broken down to Examination/Analysis and Treatment. These were some of the most important parts that I thought we should add. Thoughts?Dagriffin (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That is similar to the structure I was thinking of:

• Introduction (History/background/motivation for conservation science. I think this can be a brief paragraph as we don't want to set up expectations for a timeline level history but rather some background into the field, how it came to be, and why it is relevant today)

Agreed. Let's ensure there is also a comprehensive definition of what conservation science is, and how it relates to cultural heritage and functions in the conservation-restoration field.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• History

Added a separate section for History.Caroline Randy (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• About (this can cover the fundamentals portion. It is a generic term certainly but it's accurate! It is a nice way to introduce the section in a small paragraph and then have sub headings for material properties, mechanisms of deterioration, and then tools. We can then have a new section for methods where we dive a little deeper into tools but keep the About section a little more generic rather than deeply specific).

I'm not sure that we will need separate sections for "Introduction" and "About." I think we can consolidate the two. I agree that we want to add history and background (for example, the inception of conservation science and how it came to be) as well as why it's relevant today, citing specific examples. Let's not forget we will want to expand on the definition of what conservation science is. Not sure we need to have sub-headings in this the introductory paragraph.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Methods/Common Practices (here we can talk about specific techniques and the most common research methods and do that deep dive)

I agree adding research methods and techniques. I propose we also add a link to agents of deterioration and preventive conservation.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Applications (maybe here we could insert a few descriptions of conservation science in action, we can pull examples from the MFA textbook?)

Yes, let's absolutely include case studies. We don't have to go into detail with the case studies, but can identify them and link to resources where appropriate. Perhaps we can expand on treatment from the previous section.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think tools should be in this section as well.Caroline Randy (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could then end it with a "Future of Conservation Science" section and perhaps talk about the ethics, the way the field is growing, new technologies being explored, etc.

Agreed!

I think the biggest thing in my opinion is to limit how many sub-headings we have because it can make it harder to navigate the space sometimes. I would prefer more main headings than having a lot of little ones but if we can come up with a method that works I am very open to changing my mind! I think we have a lot to work with here for certain and the current state of the article means we can really go in any direction as there isn't much to be salvaged or worked around. Froselong (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should limit subheadings, and instead link to other articles in Wikipedia as applicable.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space to discuss references Froselong (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ward, P.R. (1986). The Nature of Conservation: A Race Against Time. Marina del Rey, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/nature_of_conservation_english

• Case studies
• Descriptions of conservation science within the context of conservation-restoration as a whole

Caple, C. (2000). Conservation Skills: judgement, method and decision making. New York, NY: Routledge. pp31-33 ISBN 0-415-18881-4

• Good definition of why we undertake preservation methods to begin with

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. 1994. AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice.

• We ought to reference the code of ethics set by the AIC and how they play into conservation science

Keune, K., Mass, J., Mehta, A., Church, J., and Meirer, F. (2016). Analytical imaging studies of the migration of degraded orpiment, realgar, and emerald green pigments in historic paintings and related conservation issues. Heritage Science, 4(10). DOI 10.1186/s40494-016-0078-1

• I have referenced this paper before but it’s a good technical paper on conservation science research that includes motivation as to why it is important

Van Loon, A., Noble, P., Krekeler, A., Van der Snickt, G., Janssens, K., Abe, Y., Nakai, I., and Dik, J. (2017). Artificial orpiment, a new pigment in Rembrandt’s palette. Heritage Science, 5(26). DOI 10.1186/s40494-017-0138-1

• Another technical paper by the same group that outlines some more specifics of the use/operation of research equipment

Thickett, D. and Lee, L.R. (2004). Selection of Materials for the Storage or Display of Museum Objects (2nd ed.). The British Museum: Occasional Papers. London, UK: The British Museum.

• Good jumping off point for history of the field

Gates, G.A. (2014). Discovering the material secrets of art: Tools of cultural heritage science. American Ceramic Society Bulletin, 93(7), pp. 20-27.

• A LOT of detail on scientific equipment and how they can be used. Basically writes the entire methods section

Agents of deterioration. (2017). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/agents-deterioration.html

• Agents of deterioration breakdown/explanation

Operation Night Watch. (2019). Rijksmuseum. Retrieved from https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/nightwatch

• REALLY COOL real-time conservation science project
• Live-streaming of researchers studying the Night Watch in the gallery itself
• Great way to discuss the future of conservation science (now in the public eye as opposed to hidden in labs)
• Also just the largest conservation research and restoration project that the public has ever had access to, it would be a shame to not include it in this article

Froselong (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've added many of the ones that I also wanted to include. Below are the additional sources.

Varella, E. A. (2012). Conservation Science for the Cultural Heritage: Applications of Instrumental Analysis. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=mP917-nz3WYC&lpg=PR3&ots=n2QbFb2Nvc&dq=conservation%20science%20in%20cultural%20heritage&lr&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=conservation%20science%20in%20cultural%20heritage&f=false

• Provides great examples of conservation techniques and methods for analysis and examination.

NPS. Museum Collections Environment. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/MHI/CHAPTER4.pdf

• Great overview of the agents of deterioration and tools used to monitor them.

https://www.tate.org.uk/research/collection-care-research/writings

• Very good resource for research within the field

Dagriffin (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Newman. 2009. MFA Highlights: Conservation and Care of Museum Collections. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.Caroline Randy (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can extract case studies.Caroline Randy (talk)

Ploeger, Rebecca. (2016). Scientific methods inform conservation efforts in the quest to preserve cultural heritage. ScienceMag. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2016/11/18/where-science-meets-art/ Caroline Randy (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Addresses controversies between science and museum policy.Caroline Randy (talk)

The Royal Society of Chemistry. (2006). Conservation Science: Heritage Materials. (E. May, & M. Jones, Eds.) Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.Caroline Randy (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Druzik, J. (2015). Three Decades of GCI Science. "The Getty Conservation Institute." Retrieved from http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/30_2/three_decades.html Froselong (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, you need to start adding more content on the article page! Rose Daly (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]