Talk:Communitas (book)

Communitas (book) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 1, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright

Registered in 1947
Renewed in 1960
Revised edition in 1988
- so first publication enters public domain in 95 years (2042)
- Also claims on 1990 afterword and preface

czar 21:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Communitas (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 00:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At some point I hope to read this book, but I'll start by reviewing the article. Things look good at first glance – I'll update the {{GAProgress}} below as I review, and leave notes for each section under the "Notes" heading below that. I'm looking forward to collaborating with you, czar! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay czar, a few outstanding points are below if you can respond when you have a chance. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ezlev and thanks for the review! Left some comments below czar 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied, Czar! This was already a good article, but now it's a Good Article. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

Totally up to you, but I think some subheadings could make this section a bit easier to read. Maybe one for the first half and one for the second, with the first paragraph left as-is under the main heading?
- Usually I avoid single paragraph sections, as they can often be left without a header with no detriment to the reader. I'd consider leaving the first two paragraphs and adding a "Goodman paradigms" heading to split the section but generally I'm not sure it'll add much unless I expand further. I considered numbering the three paragraphs that each outline a Goodman paradigm (like a list) but that felt like overkill. czar 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

Why is "in the Le Corbusier sketch style" commented out?
- Wasn't sure if it was a prominent opinion or just trivia. If no other review mentions it, I'd likely exclude it. czar 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the authors, as New Yorkers, are dismissive of cultures unlike the megacity's" – this seems like a big detail. Is it mentioned anywhere else? Could it be elaborated on a bit?
- Which part: general New Yorker chauvinism or how it played a role in the book? There are other refs that discuss Paul Goodman's self-identification with New York City but none of the other reviews/sources I've read have discussed this detail as a major role in the book besides what Widmer mentioned. czar 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant its role in the book, but if that's not discussed elsewhere, the current mention seems totally fine. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Last section first - it looks like Ellerby 1962 and Stoehr 2001 are in the references but not cited in the article. Can those be removed, or moved to a further reading section?
- Moved to Further reading until I expand from them czar 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]