Talk:McGill School of Architecture/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 16:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This needs substantial work. I think it's possible to get it done in a week so I'll put it on hold and give you a chance to address the issues. You may want to skip down to the General discussion part where I'll try to note the overall issues. If it takes longer than a week, I'll probably close this review – but will try to be available to provide a second review if you can get it into shape by mid-May. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A little too verbose, some promotional language; some information is repeated in different sections and the section hierarchy could use a slight refinement

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some copyvio and close paraphrasing of sources; not enough citations to verify there is no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excessive detail in places

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A bit promotional; be cautious when relying heavily on primary sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image tagged as PD may be for educational purposes only.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Failed without prejudice for substantial work.

Review comments

This is not an exhaustive list of problems, but gives some examples of problems present throughout the article.

Prose

The prose could be tightened up considerably. Articles are encyclopedic summaries and should stick to the facts as determined by reliable sources, stating them concisely and in a logical manner.

• Philip J. Turner joined the faculty and would eventually become the director. I removed the underlined part as this is stated a couple paragraphs down. At that point, I had it refer to him simply as "Turner" per MOS:SURNAME.
• I feel that it's unnecessary to mention some of the directors in the prose of the history section if all that's said about them is the years they began and ended their tenures as director; that is already accomplished with the table.
• U1, U2, etc., are not going to be universally understood to mean undergraduate years. fixed
• as well as three crit rooms What is a crit room? explained
• What is a "university planning program"? I assume this is the "post-graduate architecture and planning program" a.k.a. School of Urban Planning, but I think this could be clearer. changed to graduate planning program.

Layout

• Be careful about repeating things in different sections, like the lecture series. Summarize it in its own section and just briefly mention it elsewhere as needed and without elaboration.
• The sections Workshop, Media Centre and FARMM logically belong within the section Macdonald-Harrington Building, within which those facilities are located. They might be so short that they don't need their own sections. done
• Similarly, I think that there could be an overarching section Libraries and collections for a lot of the other subsections in Buildings and resources.done

Referencing & verifiability

• Section History uses the same wording as source CanadianArchitect (copyvio, see here). This needs to be paraphrased. done
• Close paraphrasing of source Highlights in the lead and 1970–present (Earwig). done
• https://mcgill.ca/architecture/programs and https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/programs/accreditation – try to find another way to state "accredited by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) and is recognized by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in the United States." You can't do much about the proper names, but you should be able to change the structure. waived
• Some close paraphrasing of https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/resources/collection in the section John Bland Canadian Architecture Collection. I think the best way to handle this would be to summarize the source rather than restating it and to neutralize the promotional tone. done
• Section FARMM has copyvio of https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/resources/farmm (Earwig). Rephrase.
  • The facility links researchers and students from the School of Architecture to other researchers around the world, and contains state-of-the-art networking, simulation and imaging, and fabrication infrastructure. Needs more paraphrasing (Original: "organization that links researchers and students from within the School of Architecture to other academic and professional researchers around the world. FARMM includes an administrative and technical staff alongside of state-of-the-art networking, simulation, and imaging technologies.") plus there is some promotional tone ("state-of-the-art", etc).
  • Suggest: Founded in 2008 with funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, FARMM connects students and researchers with colleagues internationally, and provides modern infrastructure for simulation, imaging, and fabrication. (Keep it concise.)
• A small amount of close paraphrasing from https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/school/history/forties https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/school/history/fifties https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/resources/model done
• the door to co-ed education [...] was opened This is directly from https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/school/history/turner and needs to be paraphrased. The phrasing is also sloppily redundant: co-education education → co-education. fixed
  • Also, the citation should be moved up to the end of that phrase, as the source does not mention Wisnicki. done
• with the smallest entering class of any accredited architecture school in Canada. Was not able to verify this or any of the other information cited to the acsa reference, in the text of that webpage.
• In 1921, the School had its first "sketching school" in Quebec City, a tradition that has been carried on annually to various destinations since as a credited course. Arthur Lismer, a founding member of the Group of Seven, taught this course at the School for over a decade starting in 1941. The source says that Lismer was a founding member of the Group of Seven and began teaching at the school in 1943, becoming an asst prof in 1945, but nothing about the sketching school in 1921, its locations, or Lismer teaching it from 1941.
  • https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/programs/sketchingschool says that it supports two courses, not that it is a credited course in itself. Reading that this course lasts "a little over one week" and is not a full summer semester course, I wonder how important it is for inclusion (when no other courses are specifically mentioned).
• In 1939, Turner succeeded Traquair, who had completed a 26-year tenure as director of the School. At this time, the principal of McGill, Lewis Williams Douglas, considered phasing out architectural education at the university due to low enrollment; however he faced a great deal of backlash from Turner and several famous architects from Montreal, and eventually abandoned the idea. Among these architects was Ernest Cormier, who taught at the School from 1919 to 1920. The citation only covers the very last part, that Cormier taught at the School 1919–20. done
• Wisnicki would also become the fourth female member of the Ontario Association of Architects, which was founded in 1889. The citation is for the OAA being founded in 1889 – there's nothing about Wisnicki in either citation for that paragraph, and to me that's the more contestable statement. done
• and invited McGill Architecture graduates Catherine Mary Wisnicki, Peter Oberlander and Arthur Erickson to teach at his new school. unsourced, and I'm not certain that the invitation of these job offers is important to an understanding of the the McGill School of Architecture. moved to footnote.
  • Can we please refer to Catherine Mary Wisnicki consistently? Not Catherine Chard Wisnicki, etc.
• The paragraph starting In 1970, I'm unable to verify anything to the reference Highlights.
  • I think I was looking at https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/school/highlights rather than https://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/school which was confusingly named Highlights. The source named Highlights provides verification, but it's all very closely copied from that source and has to be paraphrased.
  • The School of Architecture is one of eight units reporting to the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering source says it's one of seven units.
  • In 2011, Professor Annmarie Adams became the first female director of the School of Architecture. The source doesn't say she's the first female director; one might infer that from the names of previous directors, but that's a bit of OR since we shouldn't assume how people gender identify. I don't think we should assume any special notability of being a "first female" unless reliable secondary sources confirm such.
• In 1987, the School moved from the Engineering building to the Macdonald-Harrington Building. The source says that renovations for this move began in 1987, not that the move occurred that year. The source also doesn't verify The School of Urban Planning occupies the fourth floor. done
  • Some passing references to the fourth floor from ref UrbanPlanning.done
• In 1989, the PhD in Architecture was introduced as an ad hoc program. In 1990, Derek Drummond returned for another six years as the School's director, replaced by Professor David Covo in 1996. In 1997, the PhD program was officially approved by the Minister of Education as the first in Canada not seeing any of this in the reference CanadianArchitect. sourced
• Each entry on the list of alumni and faculty needs a citation. If it was a simple set-index list with no details, and each person had their own article, you wouldn't need citations. But as soon as you give any sort of detail (like the degree they hold and the year they graduated), you need a citation for that, particularly for biographies of living persons policy.

I haven't gone through the whole thing, but I think this gives you an idea of what to look for in the rest.

Broad & focused

• Reliance on primary sources makes it difficult to tell if the coverage is sufficiently broad. An encyclopedic summary of a subject should be more than a summary of that subject's official website.
• There may be excessive detail about the workshop; the exact models of 3D printers seems like something that could become outdated.
• I think one would assume that the student store of an architecture school would sell drafting supplies.

Neutrality

• The Canadian Architecture Collection (CAC) is one of the McGill Libraries' Special Collections, and is a very important resource for architecture and urban planning students. According to whom? (The paragraph is unsourced.) This is a bit promotional for Wikipedia's voice. Just state the facts and leave it to the reader to determine if it's important.
• whose life was cut short during World War I cut short is informal. Be careful to avoid a memorial tone to that paragraph. Just state the facts.
• Students are always welcome to visit the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) promotional tone.

Media

• Fair use rationale for File:McGill School of Architecture logo.jpg
• Seven other images verified as PD or CC.
• File:Raymond Moriyama.jpg – the source is here with the license information here which specifically notes a licensing fee for commercial use, which suggests to me that it is not public domain. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Toronto Star Archives.

Other areas to improve

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve at some point:

• FYI, some minor MOS fixes that I made: Ph.D. → PhD, B.Sc. → BSc (MOS:ABBR), Arts & Crafts → Arts and Crafts (MOS:AMP), H.E. Shorey → H. E. Shorey (MOS:INITIALS), from 1919-1920 → from 1919 to 1920 (MOS:DATERANGE). These are only recommendations and only at the FA level, but I fix them wherever I see them. There is some inconsistency in the style of academic years with 1949/1950 used early in the article and 2010–2011 used later. Although either is allowable, it's best to use one style consistently throughout the article. 1949–50 is the more common style on Wikipedia and avoids MOS:SLASH issues.
• Consider removing the Student Life line from the infobox. The acronyms are puzzling but would take up a lot of space if expanded, the links all go to subsections of the article page. Consider targeting the AISA link to American Institute of Architecture Students since it has its own article.done
• which still remain today "still remain" is redundant, and "today" is problematic as it might become outdated. Although wordier, it'd be more accurate to say something like "which remained in place as of 2020".done
• a tradition that has been carried on annually to various destinations
• Wisnicki would also become → Wisnicki becamedone
• Since the subject is the McGill School of Architecture, this can be assumed in many cases where the context is clear. e.g.: Following the retirement of Turner as director of the School of Architecture → Following Turner's retirement

General discussion

I feel that a lot of the problems stem from using so many primary sources. Primary sources can be used so long as they're reliable, but it's generally better to use reliable secondary sources. It's not wrong to use primary sources, but doing so requires extra attention. We have to be very mindful of the tone, so that it reads like an encyclopedia article and not an admissions brochure. We also have to watch for what is most notable and keep the summary concise. It's difficult to be neutral when drawing mostly from one source; the more varied the sources, the more balanced an article will tend to be. Secondary sources also help demonstrate what's notable about the subject and what should be included in an article.

As for citing material: According to the GA criteria, not everything has to have an inline citation. On the other hand, everything has to be verifiable with no original research – and the easiest way to show that is through the use of inline citations. Name references in an orderly fashion; author-year or author-keyword are often used (naming by publication or author only can be problematic if multiple works by the same publication/author are used). It might be a good idea to name all the McGill website references starting with "McGill" so it is clear that they are primary sources.

Before working too much on citations, though, consider whether some information is important enough to the subject to be included in the article, or to be included in certain places. Habitat 67 is a prominent project and I feel it has good mention in Notable alumni, but was the thesis on which it is based important to understanding the history of the school? Why single out that one thesis in the history section, which could set a precedent for other editors to add mention of other theses? Likewise, is the history of the Macdonald-Harrington building important to the history of the school? Is it necessary to name the first three graduates of the school, who aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article? A lot of this information could be trimmed, and would make for a more concise summary of the subject. Another option is to move more information down into footnotes.

With the above in mind, I feel that the article could use a bit of a rewrite. I haven't listed every specific thing needed to pass GA because there'd just be too much, but I hope that this provides enough feedback to get you going in the right direction. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions or comments. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive review, User:Reidgreg. I will spend the next few hours working on the article, beginning with the Referencing & verifiability section. At the time that I created the article and added most of that information, I was much newer to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with citation guidelines. The sources in those sections are there, but are most likely only referenced once and at the end of paragraphs. Will update here with progress. Jonahrapp (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Great! Take your time, and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, User:Reidgreg. I have spent the last 4 hours editing and I believe I corrected all of the issues you brought up + made a few of my own edits to similar issues. Standing by. Jonahrapp (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Edited further today. Summarized each section in the Lead, I think successfully, and added more information with sources to the History section. Other minor edits. Jonahrapp (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, Reidgreg. I believe I have sufficiently rewritten all of the problematic parts of the article, properly sourced all sections and removed non-neutral language. During the process of looking over all of the sources, I found more information I would consider notable and added it into certain sections. Rather than listing names in a few areas, I created NoteTags for these lists, such as the schools founded by faculty in the Lead, graduates of the School who died in War, and those who were awarded medals of distinction. I also added summaries of the important sections of the article, i.e. History, Student life and Academics to better comply with Lead guidelines. I think it's ready for a re-review! Jonahrapp (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonahrapp: Okay, I'm going to go over the article again. I'm not sure how long it'll take, but please hold off any major edits. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg - Alright, thank you! Holding off edits. Jonahrapp (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see you've made a lot of improvements. As I went through the referencing notes I'd left, there was still some close paraphrasing and copyvio in those sections. I feel that there's likely more of that elsewhere in the article.

You might want to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is one of those skills that's essential to content-editing on Wikipedia. Whenever you save an edit, you're releasing it under a creative commons licence. But you can't release the work of another person; that's why you have to write article content in your own words.

I also thought it might help to look at some comparable GAs. Thayer School of Engineering looks fairly good to me, as a target for what this article could look like (it passed GA 12 years ago and could use some touch up). Others, which don't quite appear to be of the same quality, are Willamette University College of Law and University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural Resources. (I was looking for departments or faculties of a university.)

I could go through the rest of the article and give you a laundry list of problems, but I feel I'd be repeating myself. I'd rather you went through it and applied the notes I've given to the rest of the article. Check every sentence and citation against the GA criteria. Then, once you're confident that it's at or close to a GA, nominate it again. How does that sound? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, thank you for reviewing the article again. I will look at those GA articles you mentioned (up until now, I have been generally referring to FA university articles like Dartmouth and FAU as references), and will make corrections based on the suggestions you made (FARMM section, sketching school section etc.). As for neutrality and being broad and focused, what do you think about it now, after my edits the last few days? I am willing to go through each sentence and correct all copyvio using the Earwig copyvio detector, which I would expect could be completed by Wednesday or Thursday. Would you still be willing to review it again by the end of the week? I have quite a bit of free time at the moment and would prefer not to have to re-nominate the article again if I do not have to, as my university deadlines are coming up at the end of the month/beginning of May. Jonahrapp (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have looked over Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and now understand what the issue is. Before, I was simply removing word-for-word copyvio by comparing with Earwig's (and just finished doing so from about 20 sources, though it was not much, apart from proper names). Now I will look at each source individually and compare to my own writing to correct any close paraphrasing. Jonahrapp (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In broad strokes (this should all wait until referencing and paraphrasing is done):

• I really appreciate the three-sentences at the top of the History section; that's good summary style. It gives the reader the essential context to understand what follows, whether they want to read further details on history or skip to the next L2 section.
• I suspect the prose could be tightened up, though when expanding an article it's almost always best to go wide and then pare it down. The GA criteria for prose is mainly about clarity and avoiding repetitiveness, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
• There might be some layout tweaks to be made. The layout is about (1) logical grouping, with similar things put together (e.g.: perhaps moving the table of directors into the administration section), and (2) establishing context so that the material which follows is understandable (e.g.: it might make more sense for Academics to precede Student life, as it discusses the programs and undergraduate/graduate degrees). I'll make any specific recommendations on that in my next review.
• The lead may be a little long. MOS:LEAD (part of the GA criteria) recommends three paragraphs for an article of this size (although I'm willing to consider an exception). However, the lead is really the last thing to work on; it's not productive to sweat the details there until the rest of the article is sorted.

I hope this isn't taking time away from your studies. Remember there's no deadline (don't worry about the seven-day thing). I'm feeling optimistic about this. I think I've got one more review in me, whether you're ready for that at the end of the week or next month. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Reidgreg. Thank you again for your response, and for assuring me that there is no deadline. I will have quite a bit of work for the rest of this month and will likely only have time to make sparse edits to the article, so I will have to take up your offer for another review next month. Will you keep the nomination on hold until then, or close the review? Thank you. Jonahrapp (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What I'll do is close this review. When you're ready next month, nominate it again and ping me, or leave a message on my talk page, and I'll start a new review at Talk:McGill School of Architecture/GA2. That'd probably be easier for me, as it's a bit like hitting a moving target when re-reviewing an article that's undergoing a lot of changes. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)