Talk:William Adam (architect)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article William Adam (architect) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Birthdate

Birthdate is different than the one on his grave at Find-A-Grave. Lincher 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] feedback

Just some points I'm noticed in passing

  1. However, unlike Smith or Sir William Bruce, Adam was a presbyterian Whig,[10] and he subsequently acquired influential patrons - the significance of being a whig to these contacts needs explained. Why was it an advantage. As I recall this is during the time of Jacobite suspicions - it needs stated that the government was whig, and those those with jacobite/tory sympathies were out of favour. Did his potential rivals suffer from their political views? Needs more explanation (or remove it).
  2. It tends to assume that the reader is familiar with Scottish history and geography: e.g. "Jacobite rising of 1745" you need to unpack that the rising was an armed rebellion in the highlands - and the military works were a response, otherwise it makes no sense.

It's a reasonable article - but it needs a bit of work yet. I may look back later. --Docg 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Excellent article! Just a few small prose tweaks

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A couple of places need a citation
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Details:

  • Consider consolidating the lede, espcailly the last three paragraphs, which are all one or two sentences long. Such short paragraphs give the prose a choppy feel.The lede wouldn't be hurt by a bit of expansion, although it does cover the article, so it's not necessary.
    • Rearranged but not significantly expanded.
  • Biography section, Early life subsection, the last two sentences seem a bit choppy. Might reword them, but I won't hold the article back for this at all.
    • Slight rewording.
  • Same section, Rise to fame subsection. I'm confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph. Why should all the reasons just listed for Adam have led to Smith getting a position?
    • Reworded for clarity.
  • Same section and subsection, second paragraph. I take it Smith and Bruce were Catholics? Perhaps it might be best to mention that at the very least. A bit of expansion on why a presbyterian Whig (And shouldn't Presbyterian be capitalized?) would have more sucess than Catholics in this time frame wouldn't hurt.
    • They were episcopalians, hopefully I have explained this better now.
  • Same section and subsection and paragraph. Did Adam not get the city clerk post in Edinburgh? It's not quite clear from the context.
    • No he didnt, clarified.
  • Same section and subsection, last paragraph. Being a Yank, I'm not sure if "he sat to William Aikman" is correct British English or not. Sounds awkward to me, but I'm assuming the article uses British English so I hesitate to change it.
    • I agree it sounds a bit odd, but one does "sit to" a painter for a portrait.
  • Architectural works, Public buildings. Perhaps it is because I'm a Yank, but when I see "town house" I think of a private residence, but from the context of the first sentence it's obvious that this isn't the case. Perhaps an explanation for those of us who are across the pond?
    • clarified
  • Same section and subsection. I think it'd be better to say "New Library for the University of Glasgow, since demolished." or something similiar. Avoiding parenthetical remarks is always a good idea with prose.
    • OK
  • Jacobite rising of 1745 could use a bit more explanation for those folks not conversant with Scottish history. And it should probably be linked to an article on the subject also.
    • Again explained better
  • Legacy section, first paragraph, The last two sentences probably need a citation, since they are expressing an opinion.
    • Missed that one, will have to look up sources again for this.
  • Same section, Critical appreciation subsection. The quotation in the sentence beginning "John Summerson disregards..." needs a direct citation, per WP:CITE. Same for the last sentence in the paragraph.
    • Not sure what is meant? Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_found_the_material states "make it clear you only saw the intermediate source" - I haven't had access to Summerson's book, so I gave Gifford's summary of his opinion, and cited Gifford appropriately. Last sentence ("the architect of Scotland") is directly cited.
  • Family section, the last three paragraphs are choppy and could probably be expanded or merged together to make the prose flow better.
    • Merged last two, first one really is associated with the list.

All in all an excellent article. Just a few things that I brought up above.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive review Ealdgyth. I have addressed all but two of your points as I've noted above. I need to go back to sources for citations, which I wont get chance to do this week, but could take out the offending sentences if it will hold up the article. Not sure what you mean about "direct citation"? Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Direct citation means that in this case ... "... although John Dunbar suggests that "he could express himself convincingly enough in that idiom", for instance at Haddo House"<footnote> ... the quotation there needs a footnote like this: "although John Dunbar suggests that "he could express himself convincingly enough in that idiom",<footnote> for instance at Haddo House."<footnote>, even if it's jsut the one at the end of the sentence. It's a pain in the behind, and I hate to have to enforce it, but it's there and it's part of the citing sources rules. What I often do is reword the sentence so that the quotation is at the end, so I can use the end of the sentence footnote for both the quote and the sentence. That explain it better? Ealdgyth | Talk 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, yes that's clearer. I thought you were referring to the Summerson bit of the sentence. I can fix that no problem as its from the same source. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to see what the progress has been, and making sure you're not ready for me to relook at it. What's the status?Ealdgyth | Talk 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done all I can for now, please go ahead and complete the review, thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! Passing it now! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)