Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Mountfort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Benjamin Mountfort

A self nomination: I wrote this fairly short article because while there is plenty of good articles about European architecture, there is less about that of the southern hemisphere. It has some excellent contemporary photographs, which explain better than text what the man was about. Giano 09:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment at this stage. I think this is a very good article but I have a few comments mostly about layout. Firstly the picture of Mountfort at the top of the article should be on the right hand side. The newspaper quote about Lyttelton church should not be double-spaced and there's no need to have the same line lengths as in the original paper (I assume). Should the link to August Pugin be to Augustus Pugin, the name by which he is mostly known? Also it would be nice to know exactly to which Christian doctrine Mountfort was an adherent - there is all the difference in the world in architecture between being a devout Methodist and a devout Catholic. Also, something I'm doing as a preparatory for a major expansion of Giles Gilbert Scott, would it be possible to list all his significant works (even when not mentioned in the text) at the bottom, with colour photos? Dbiv 11:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think I have addressed all these points. It did say he was an Anglican, however this is now more defined. Link is now to Augustus Pugin (perhaps the Pugin page needs to be moved?) I have listed his major works (this list will grow over time) the colour photos are a problem, as all available are in copyright, and its a bit far to go and take some (for me anyway) I have added links to the list which will provide photographs - hopefully this will suffice. Giano 12:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Support. Dbiv 16:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I can live with the B/W photos. Filiocht 13:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - too short: the article seems to be a simple chronological biography. There is comparably very little on his style, legacy and masterworks. No longer object, thought don't explicitly support - I am ambiguous. I recognise it has everything necessary to a Featured Article, though it still lacks a certain nack. Perhaps I will still change my mind by the end of the vote. --Oldak Quill 18:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for withdrawing the objection. I'm unsure how to redress your last comment, and not sure that I can. This article is now the most comprehensive study of Benjamin Mountfort on the internet (that I can find, and believe me I have looked). Books published on him are few and limited, New Zealand architecture is a fascinating subject (to those interested at least) but it is very under-researched. This is my best shot at Ben Mountfort, I can add no more. Giano 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have expanded now on the buildings. Regarding style I think the article does make it clear that he worked in the linked Gothic revival style, and that his individualism came from working in wood, and in that particular location and the philosophy behind his interpretation of the style, which is explained in depth. It would be POV on my part to say that was he working in Europe his works may not be as notable.Giano 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support—flows well (IMO); and it exposes a niche in NZ history, usually you don't see many early NZ histories on architecture. DiamondVertex 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comments - I think this is a very interesting article, but I just have three small comments. First, the sentence contrary to common belief in England...there was little call for architects - was this really a common belief? It gives me images of shiploads of hopeful architects heading south expecting to find a paradise where their buildings were in constant demand, only to have their hopes cruelly dashed on arrival. Second, the section about his personal life seems oddly placed in the middle of the article. I would suggest that maybe the information from it could be incorporated into the general flow of the text. And finally, in the penultimate paragraph the word 'genius' seems perhaps POV, as the rest of the article gives me the impression that he was certainly talented but perhaps not in the genius ranks? Worldtraveller 17:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I see the wisdom of these points and have addressed them. Giano 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Definitely support now - as I say, a very interesting article, kept me reading to the end even though I've never been to New Zealand and know hardly anything about architecture! Worldtraveller 18:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support a brilliant article which I learned a lot from. I visited Christchurch over the summer and was wondering who designed the museum and college buildings. Lisiate 00:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object Comment - Completely inadequate lead section and seems too short overall (if this is FA length for a biography on somebody that a lot can be written about, then I'll pretty up John Muir and Billy the Kid and then nominate those articles). --mav 01:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have expanded the lead. I don't know of any further information which could be useful on the subject, this architect was not in the same league as Vitruvius, Palladio, Alberti or even Robert Adam, but do the limitations of his work prevent him becoming "featured" ? Is there a prescribed minimum length? Giano 09:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• To quote from Wikipedia:What is a featured article Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted.. There is also a requirement to be comprehensive as in not omitting any significant facts. IMHO, this article meets this requirement and is clearly not a candidate for merging, so the too short objection lacks validity, but what do I know?. Filiocht 09:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• By comparison, this article is at least as long as those of Julia Stiles and Alexander Hamilton which are both nominated as well without any length objections. We have here a summary of his life, works and influences. What more could be added? Oh, and Billy the Kid would be great as a featured article... Lisiate 19:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well if you'all think this is comprehensive for this person, then I retract my objection but still leave my length comment. --mav 02:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article, now very comprehensive, in a sparsely populated area of Wikipedia. Bishonen | Talk 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment an interesting article, but I have some doubts about it. It could do with a brief explanation of "tractarian" (not an everyday word, I suggest), and "Ruskinesque". I'm also concerned about the flow of the article. Some sentences seem to be trying to make too many points (one or two is normally enough). Take the sentence "George Gilbert Scott, the architect of Christchurch Cathedral, and an empathiser of Mountfort's teacher and mentor Carpenter, wished Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project, a proposal which was however vetoed by the Cathedral Commission." That tells me that (1) Scott was the architect of Christchurch Cathedral; (2) Scott was an empathiser of Carpenter; (3) Carpenter was Mountfort's teacher; (4) Carpenter was Mountfort's mentor; (5) Scott wanted Mountfort to be the clerk of works and supervising architect of the new cathedral project; (6) The new cathedral project proposal was vetoed by the Cathedral Commission. There are other sentences that also seem overworked. I think the article would be a better read if these sentences could be broken up; this may take up a bit more room, but the article's only 19.5kb long at the moment anyway, so that wouldn't be a problem, 21:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). (Signing for Jguk, Bish.)
  • Good points, and I've tried to address them somewhat in a copy-edit. Conservatively so, as I rather like the commodious sentences, but I agree they can be overdone. Please see what you think now. Bishonen | Talk 09:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)