Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WP:ARCHPR

WikiProject Architecture's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. To add a nomination:

  1. Place {{WP-Arch-peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.
  3. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top, with the name of your article in the link brackets, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page.
  4. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress.

Archive


Contents


[edit] Requests

[edit] Golubac fortress

I'm mostly looking for a more specific assessment, since I'm guessing it's at least GA by now. How close is it to A or FA? Also, any suggestions people can offer would be great. There are some questions on the talk page that, once answered, can improve the article a bit more, but beyond that, I'm at a loss for what else it needs (Or, more precisely, having trouble finding more information to fill in the gaps). Thanks for any help! -Bbik 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunston Hall

Hello! Gunston Hall is a piece of Georgian architecture and was owned by George Mason, a United States Founding Father. I welcome all suggestions for improvement, but I am unsure of the reliability of a few of the references, so it would be great to get another opinion on that. Thanks! ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is generally structurally sound and gives a good overview of the subject. Some comments:

  • Regarding references: there is something of an overeliance on the offical website, which will almost certainly express a sympathetic point of view. As you've stated the source explicitly in the most contentious cases this isn't so much of a problem, but more diversity in the references would be helpful. The one place where its use is a concern is for the statement no other rooms with chinoiserie woodwork are known to have existed in colonial America. I imagine you've found more or less all the online information about Gunston Hall, but if possible borrowing some of the print sources listed in the official site's bibliography from the library would be of use. I wouldn't use the FXVA reference as it is a tourist brochure, and the location of the mansion is sufficiently straghtforward not to require a reference anyway. The US Navy reference is a dead link at the moment.
  • Things without references which could do with one:
    • The various carvings in the mansion were most likely the joint work of both William Buckland and William Bernard Sears
    • Of the bedchambers, the four corner rooms were considered the nicest. Also try to avoid using the word nicest.
  • Provide metric conversions of distances in parentheses, and use words instead of figures for numbers of twenty or less.
  • There are a few redundant uses of "also" and temporal terms such as "currently" which can be removed. A far better explanation of this than I can give is at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy.
  • The passive voice (could be, would have) is used a couple of times when the active voice would be more appropriate. e.g. change The attic could be accessed through one of the inner bedrooms to The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 11:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Working on it.... Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you for the help! *Hopefully*, I have fixed all of the problems above, except for the lack of source variety / offline sources, which will take time. Would you be willing to take another look at it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking good. One thing I neglected to mention before is that the section about the visitors centre and shop is a little brochure-like. The information about admission prices should be removed. It should state what is there rather than suggesting what visitors can do. Oldelpaso 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed up the section. Thank you so much!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have one piece of software that estimates the grade level readability (unknown method) at 17.1, while another estimates the Flesch-Kincaide grade level readability at 10.9, with a Flesch reading ease of 45.5. I don't know if this is good or bad. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I started to copy edit this, but the ref system used makes it hard to do so (that is my problem) but to me the text seems very verbose, with ambiguities and too many " most likely"s and "according to"s (8 in fact) - if something is known as fact say so, if it not known state it as an accreditation or assertion. I don't see how the house can be mostly the design of Buckland if the exterior walls were finished when he first arrived on the scene. "According to Luke Beckerdite" - who is Luke Beckerdite? The text need to be sharpened and refined. It is an interesting page on a fascinating subject but is does need to be pulled together and made less repetitious Giano 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and edits! I have excised all uses of the phrase "according to" in favour of other forms of attribution. The most likelies and probablies often occur when the sources themselves are uncertain, because they are making guesses based on archaeological evidence. There is probably a better way to handle that, but I will have to look at it rather than just taking them out. Luke Beckerdite was an author of a chapter of an online book, which is cited. Anyway, I will do my best to more fully address your concerns when I have time. Again, thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is not known for sure then something is an accreditation or an assertion. If someone is an author than say so in the the text. eg The author Fred Smith has asserted that..., or claimed that... on the basis of etc etc etc. Don't just suddenly drop in unexplained a strange name, even if he is listed in the refs. It is a good page on the whole - I'm sure it will get there. Giano 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
See below. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great beginning to this article, but there are some things that need work, in my humble opinion:

  • Besides a few sentences and the section on construction, the article doesn't really outline the history of the house and the grounds. Take a look at Giano's marvelous article on West Wycombe Park. There is just as much information on the family who occupied the house as there is on the architecture. Additionally, you might consider merging the section on the other Mason plantations into this history. Along those same lines, I would redirect the other plantations to this article unless the articles can be expanded and the plantations are notable enough to warrent separate mention.
A great deal of time is spent on the interior, with little on the exterior. I would create a section on the exterior and combine the interior sections (including basement). In addition, the Gardens and Outbuildings sections could be combined as well.
  • The lone sentence on the construction of the house should be placed in the first paragraph of the introduction.
  • There are portraits of both Mason and Buckland in their respective articles, these might be included as well.

Your work so far is quite admirable, but this still needs work before this goes for FAC. I hope this is helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I'll do my best to expand on the history, etc. I recently found a new source that should help with that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully, there will be enough text to add pictures of Mason and Buckland once I expand the article to include informations in some three new sources I found, listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:IvoShandor

Just glanced at some of the above. I would note that a sentence using "was" is also passive voice.

The attic was accessible through one of the inner bedrooms

That's passive. The subject has to act on the verb for it not to be....

That sentence is hard to construct without passive. _______ accessed the attic through the inner bedrooms. That is how the sentence could be constructed non-passively. Not sure what the missing word would be though.

I hang around peer review a lot so I will try to complete a thorough review for you soon. IvoShandor 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 10:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Mcginnly

What an interesting article, well written, nice images, well referenced - it's a good FA candidate I'd have thought. A few comments:-

  1. Presumably this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places - this should get a mention and the Category:National Register of Historic Places should be included, but please - no infobox!
  2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 8 km, use 8 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 8 km.[?]
  3. In the last paragraph Other Mason plantations - 'George Mason' recurs too much in the text - maybe replace with 'his' and 'he' where possible. (I know there's several G Masons but it gets a bit repetitive)
  4. I wonder whether its worthwhile combining the rather short 'outbuildings' section with the 'garden section' into a 'Gardens and outbuildings' section?
  5. Unlike other 18th century houses of Gunston Hall's stature, the layout of the second floor is unlike the layout of the floor below - 2 'unlike's and 2 'layout of's - maybe replace the second clause with 'the layout of the second floor is entirely dissimilar to the floor below'
  6. It's difficult to imagine the 'rococo, chinoiserie, and Gothic' interiors - these certainly aren't evidenced by the rather sedate image of the corridor - are there no images of these rooms we might be able to include?
  7. 'Although chinoiserie was popular in Britain, the Gunston Hall museum website says Gunston was the only house with this decoration in colonial America.[7]' - No need to include a mention of the website in the text and provide a citation - one or the other.
  8. 'In November, when Buckland arrived, the exterior walls of Gunston Hall were probably complete' - if it's 'probably' we need to cite who asserts it was probably complete - or is this our own assertion?
  9. There's a few mention of 'private, non-public rooms' - surely a private room is, by definition, non-public? redundancy. It's probably better to include a short paragraph explaining how the house would be used at the time, for entertaining etc. and how the house was split between those functions and those for the family's habitation.
  10. I'm personally quite interested in Servant's quarters and the way they are integrated into the public/private plan of such houses - you mention the outbuildings providing accomodation for slaves - but where was the kitchen in relation to the dining room - how was the food transported there - where was the laundry?
  11. Ideally a plan would be great. I'm happy to draw one up if you have any information I can go on? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I am starting to make changes per you. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I made some changes, but some of your suggestions will take more time. I should be able to add more pictures when I add more text. I have found three new potential sources since the peer review started, which are currently listed in Gunston Hall#Further_reading. HABS provides a lot of pictures, so finding a picture that shows architectural detail won't be hard. However, all the indoor photos are greyscale.
HABS also provides architectural drawings, however they do not scale well to small sizes. They should be public domain, so perhaps you could make them readable at sizes suitable for inclusion in the article? That would be most appreciated. See first floor, second floor, basement, house and garden, and grounds. Of course, I doubt there is need for five plans, but perhaps you can decide which are most important. Note that you will probable have to download the TIFFs in order to be able to read the text.
Unfortunately, archaeologists can't seem to find the slave quarters. One of the new potential sources seems to provide a lot of information about the activities that occurred at Gunston Hall Plantation, although it is often unclear if it is talking about GHP specifically, or plantations of that time period in general. I won't be able to use it until I go to the library again. It provides information about the crops grown, goods produced, why the plantation is situated near the Potomac, etc. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probablies

The uncertain statements in the second paragraph of Gunston Hall#Construction, and how best to attribute them, seems to be a popular point of discussion. Perhaps repeating the reference at the end of every sentence will do? Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Spire

Others and myself been working hard on getting this article to a GA rating. Was wondering what can be done to get it to a GA rating and hopefully, soon, to FA status. I've added, wikified and 'APAed' all 19 references. I've also expanded the introduction section and have organized the article into sections that allow us to easily add information in as it becomes available as well as make it easy for the reader to understand and learn. Any thoughts and recommendations on that as well as any other things that need attention. Thanks! Chupper 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Review by Mcginnly This is one of the better articles about an ongoing building project I've read on wikipedia. Well referenced and with some really nice images. I think aspirations to make the article an FA will probably have to be put on hold until the building is finished though. Criticism is likely to be levelled that it is a type of current news event and the article may fail the FA 'stability' criteria (1e). In order to keep the article comprehensive (1a) you'd need to keep adding facts as they arise. (Someone might set me right on this). It's prospects for A-class or GA class are good though and there are a few comments I'd like to make.

  1. Expansion - Has the building been written about in Architectural publications? - I'd guess that for such a tall, important building some mention would have been made in the Arch press so getting the architectural side of things will help to balance the article and improve the scope of the references. What are the architectural, engineering and urban studies opinions of the building?
  2. Context - where does this building sit in the context of Calatrava's career - is it a continuation of a theme or a departure? Where does it sit in the development of skyscrapers as a whole - is this a new approach etc.etc.
  3. Listing the description of the current scheme first was a bit confusing - it might be better to make the article more chronological. (eg you state that mayoral approval was received on March 16, 2006 and yet the present scheme (written about earlier in the article) says [In late December 2006 the developer is solilciting opinions from the mayor for another scheme]
  4. Structure - is the twisting making the structure more efficient? What are the problems with builing tall structures and how are they being overcome (it might be too early in the project's development to do this bit yet).
  5. Check spelling for story - in the UK it's storey but story might be ok in the US.
  6. Proposed accomodation should come earlier in the article "This included the removal of the hotel and broadcast antenna, making the building all condominiums." comes mid way through with no previous mention of the hotel and broadcast antenna.
  7. Site - what occupied the site previously - how does the building relate to the space around it.
  8. Plans - are there any plans or sections we can see?
  9. Globalise - go through the article and try and think about a global readership - I'm not sure what part the mayor plays in granting approval for the building - is his role advisory or does he have the ultimate say in whether it gets approval or not (It's different in the UK, Mayors are mostly ceremenial titles - except some new one's like Ken Livingstone)?
  10. The quote from the architect seems a bit lonely - I'd like to hear more about what he has to say about the building - Well you have submitted this to the architecture peer review, what do you expect! :-)
Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chupper's initial response

Wow, you guys are chosen to review these articles for a reason! Awesome feedback! As soon as I have a few hours free I'm going to get right to work.
Thanks, but no one's chosen to do this, anyone can comment. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few quick responses to your comments.
  1. I agree. I'll search and see what I can find.
  2. Great idea. I'll get to work on this.
  3. Yea, this was an issue I always faced. At first we had a development history & development status section and we we put only new information in status & old information in history. I switched it around a bit recently, and I'm not too happy with it. I was worried about the article turning into proseline as things come in, but I've had some ideas on how to keep the section yet also put in a chronological flow. I'll get to work on that.
  4. I'll see what I can find out.
  5. Yea, it's story in the United States.
  6. I'll see how I can better present this.
  7. I'll look into this.
  8. So far all I could put in is what I found in the newspapers. I'll dig deeper.
  9. Well Mayor Daley is Mayor Daley :). I guess we could put some info on this, but you are right, I'll try to throw in a global perspective on it. Mayor Daley is feared even by the U.S. Presidents and all the Chicago Mayor Daleys in the past have been as well :) (I don't know if you have ever watched Thirteen Days, theres a reference in there to that). Daley's responsible for a beastly political machine in Chicago. If he wants something done he does it. Once he didn't want an airport in Chicago and in the middle of the night, randomly, he had it bulldozed.
  10. I agree there on the quote. I'll do what I can.
I also agree regarding the FA thing. I wish it could, but it probably can't until it's been completed; too much information will be added too often. Chupper 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, as I remembered something as a pointer regarding the structure - see this design [1] - I seem to remember watching a TV programme about it. One of the problems tall-buildings have to overcome is issues arrising from wind flow around the building - the pushing-over effect (streamlining helps with this and keeps cost down because less the building can be made to withstand less stress - less stress mean less (steel/concrete) means less weight, means cheaper foundations etc.) The thing about fosters 'cone' shaped building was that is was a really good shape for dealing with vibrations generated by wind and eathquakes - do you remember seeing those pictures of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing - wind caused the catastrophic failure of the structure because it vibrated it at it's natural resonant frequency (or, reading the article, more accurately Flutter) - for tall building this frequency is largely determined by it's cross section - so a building that's cone shaped has different natural frequencies at different height - making it much more stable under wind and earthquake vibrations. (If I remember correctly). --Mcginnly | Natter 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an engineer so I got a second opinion from one to make sure I wasn't talking through my hat - he said:- --Mcginnly | Natter 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Overall i think your review was excellent. Regarding the structural issues i think you are also on target. i would definitely like to see some info in the article on total flex of the building in a 60 mph wind for example. the author may want to consult sources such as Why Buildings Stand Up: Strength of Architecture from the Pyramids to the Skyscraper by Salvadori, Mario, Mario George Salvadori, Christopher Ragus, Saralinda Hooker - 2002
I really agree strongly with the need to have some site history. any toxic liability ? there must have been a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment done. It should be summarised and referenced. best regards. Anlace 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoreview from AndyZ script
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 888 ft, use 888 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 888 ft.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 888 ft.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): doesn't.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chupper's second response OK, I'm still working on it, for the record :). It was hard to dig up information on the site, but I did find some very interesting information on a park which is part of the plans of the spire. See DuSable Park, Chicago. I included some of that information in the Chicago Spire article and created an entire article for DuSable Park. I've been reading Why Buildings Stand Up: Strength of Architecture and as soon as I get some good points I'll probably quote it and put in some more information in architecture. After all that I'll go through the reviews here primarily dealing with housekeeping and fix that stuff. When I get to that point I will let you know. In the meantime if you have more to say, please feel free to do so. Thanks, Chupper 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Chupper's third response & request on how to proceed I've tried to address every issue listed on this page that seemed relevant. Great ideas guys, I really appreciate it. I just ask now that you review the article again, let me know if there is anything I missed, and let me know how I should proceed. I was originally hoping to get this article to FA status. I realize that may not be a possibility because of the status of the building. But should I go for it anyway, or no? Dependent upon what you guys say I'll either go with an FA nomination or just a GA nomination. Thanks again, I look forward to your thoughts. Chupper 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aga Khan Award for Architecture

Looking for constructive feedback that would help to elevate this article to a GA rating. Also, does it have the potential to reach FA? Any thoughts on additional areas that ought to be addressed by this article would also be appreciated. -- Aylahs (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by DVD R W

Some comments and advice from me:

  • I've never seen an article about an award make FA, but it is an interesting idea to me.
  • What is keeping you back the most is that there is really not enough writing - it is basically a list of recipients. Maybe consider trying to make this a featured list.
  • Use footnotes instead of external links in the article. There are way too many external links in the text.
  • Write articles about some of the red linked recipients, because there are too many red links.

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 11:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DVD - these are great suggestions! -- Aylahs (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Architecture_Peer_review_b2fc.html"