Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Lawson (architect)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:06, 23 March 2008.

Robert Lawson (architect)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
  • Fails Criterion 1C. Djacku 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails Criterion 1C and 1D. It is brilliantly written, but I am concerned as to whose opinions are being given - I suspect they are those of the article creator. I notice that these concerns have been previously raised on the TalkPage - and that there has been an earlier attempt to get a review of the article. I feel the article might benefit from trimming back some of the unsupported opinions, and from finding cites for those opinions that can found in reliable sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets all criteria. Primary editor responded to talk page concerns in October 2007, resulting in noteworthy revision to prose and expansion of inline citations. It is unclear where the nominator has found any evidence of factual inaccuracy, or, in response to SilkTork's point, where there is an absence of (1D) neutral point of view. The references for this article are difficult to find printed sources, all of which are reliable. Risker (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All of the opinions (to the best of my knowledge - it's been a while since I worked on the article) are from a variety of books on New Zealand architecture, among them:
  • Knight, H. and Wales, N. (1988) Buildings of Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe.
Hardwicke Knight is widely acknowledged as Dunedin's top historian. Niel Wales is a descendant of the founders of Mason & Wales, one of New Zealand's top architectural firms.
  • McGill, D. and Sheehan, G. (1997) Landmarks: Notable historic buildings of New Zealand. Auckland: Godwit Publishing.
This book (a finalist in the Montana New Zealand Book Awards - NZ's top book awards) was written in conjunction with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. David McGill has published numerous important books on the subject of New Zealand's architectural heritage.
  • Herd, J. and Griffith, G. (1980) Discovering Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe.
George Griffiths is former Managing Director of Otago Heritage Books, one of New Zealand's top regional historical publishing companies.
  • McLean, G. (2002) 100 historic places in New Zealand. Auckland:Hodder Moa Beckett.
Gavin McLean is senior Historian at New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
It also benefitted from consultation with User:Peter Entwisle, who is one of Dunedin's most prominent history writers, with a particular expertise in art and architectural history (he is, IIRC, a former director of the Dunedin Public Art Gallery and Otago Settlers Museum).
Unfortunately, at this remove, it would be difficult and painstaking to go back and find which expressed opinion came from which of these sources, but these works should be listed (and indeed most are) in the article's reference list. The main concern to my mind would be the lack of inline citations for these sources, not the possibility that the opinions are not those from published sources. Grutness...wha? 10:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reassured that the opinions have come from reliable sources. However there is a credibility gap on the reliability of the information contained within the article because of the lack of appropriate attribution. One reliable source I did find for statements on the Otago School section didn't agree with the contents in the article. When faced with such conflicting evidence a reader WILL go with the reliable source rather than Wiki, and it - sadly - damages not only the article's reputation, but that of Wikipedia in general, especially when said article has been selected as an example of how we do things! I would encourage people to get involved in making this brilliantly written article more credible. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the missing facts [1] came from the web site of Ottago Boys School where the history section is currently being re-written which is why that claim is currently unreferenced. I think the over-scrutiny of the obvious here provides a very good reason for not bringing a page to FA status. The re-writing of certain sections has, in my view, reduced the text to the banal and should guarantee restful sleep before the conclusion of the page. By all means take away the star but let's not do it at the expense of the page. Giano (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also bear in mind content above style if we are having gentle digs at each other! The first priority of an encyclopedia is being trustworthy - a nicely turned phrase adds an admirable sparkle to the solid truth, but simply puts an ugly gloss to the unreliable assertion. Wiki's reputation lies not in the quality of its prose, but in the quality of its reliability. FAs should be among our most reliable articles and should be able to withstand the hostile scrutiny of a passing journalist. The banal and verifiable truth is what an encyclopedia is about, brilliant writing is what the larks in the 6th form aspire to as they wear pink carnations and fail to get into the university of their choice because writing "This!" in total answer to the essay question "Define courage" may get one pats on the back from the other larks, but a big fat zero from the examining board. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we playing silly games here? I provide a reference to a statement by Cyril Roy Knight, M.A., BARCH. (LIVERPOOL), F.R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., F.N.Z.I.A., Professor Emeritus, University of Auckland writing in the Encyclopedia of New Zealand (1966) and I'm reverted to an unsourced and very dodgy assertion in a primary source. Come on - I can't let that stand! Read the respective sources, and think carefully about what you are doing. I'm trying to make the article more credible. If any of you guys are unhappy at my bland prose, then polish it up. Don't polish the dodgy turd - polish the solid truth! ;-) SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a 40-year old tertiary source (it comes from an encyclopedia, after all) is no more reliable than a description from the school, which actually holds all the records of construction of the building. Even I know that isn't early renaissance architecture. Please mind the scatological references, they aren't appropriate here. Risker (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are missing the point here and this is turning into some kind of fight with personal comments. I make a light-hearted remark, and I'm criticised. Hmmm. I am backing away from this. I thought my point was clear about appropriate referencing, and I've tried to make it several times now, but if I am not being understood then there's little point in my continuing. I wish you all well, and I'm genuinely sorry I've rubbed some people up the wrong way - that was never my intention. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if we can consider this on hold until Giano's current arb case is done. Perhaps he can explain what was agreed on in October. In the meantime, someone might format the references that are there. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erk, I see Giano has commented above me. Not sure what he means, entirely. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means, this page has been here since 8th September 2007 with no decision to demote, if it stays here for another 3 months we may all be dead from old age and the criteria may have changed yet again. Why not just nominate each page for FARC as it achieves FA status and then wait for the criteria to change. This should ensure a 100% success rate. Giano (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this FARC was filed by what appears to be a SPA[2] that targeted eight different featured articles; only one edit of this account was unrelated. Marskell commented on the editor's talk page[3] about correct process; the editor never returned. Risker (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About par for the course - never mind. Giano (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Silk Tork [4] reversions the article now says of the school "he combines brickwork and stone in the design of the walls of the school, an early Renaissance feature" this is complete rubbish and certainly not a feature of the early Renaissance. If that statement is allowed to remain then the page deserves to be demoted. I am not reverting this rubbish yet again, someone else can decide. The author of the reference is clearly referring to the quoining resembling rustication not the much later combination of brick and stone quoining typical of the English "Jacobethan" "Renaissance" styles which is the style of the school. perhaps Silk Tork knows something other than this - which is what the page said originally. Giano (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Renaissance
not early Renaissance - spot the difference
You are of course welcomed and encouraged to improve the section in line with the source. And you are also welcomed and encouraged to seek out reliable sources for the earlier version which you prefer. My issue is with SUPPORTING what is said, especially when there are bold, peacock claims made, rather than with WHAT is said. If you feel I have misread "In this example Lawson combines stone and brickwork in the walls; the former as quoins for wall openings and for external angles, the latter for the main body of the walls. This feature is seen again at the Bank of New Zealand, the Otago Boys' High School, and at Larnach Castle. It is an early Renaissance treatment," then please correct me. I have highlighted the sections in the quote which led me to my reading, and will be pleased for you to amend my error. I'll put my hand up and admit I am not an expect in this field and don't know the subject as well as you. I am, however trying to do what I feel is right, and I'm doing it in good faith and in a good humour. I respect your reputation here, and I like what I have seen of you so far. I can pick up your frustration at my actions, and I apologise that I am causing you hurt right now - believe me, that is not my intention! Warm regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the best thing to do with this FARC is close it, and forget it ever happened, since it was initiated by an SPA. I'm not sure that the edits made by SilkTork are, on the whole, beneficial to the article, frankly. FA's are supposed to incorporate brilliant prose where possible, and what I see happening to this article is what I've seen happen to some other FA or FA candidate articles that SilkTork has edited lately... deterioration. That would be a darn shame, and I'm frankly at a loss as to what SilkTork is up to given his editing patterns. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, would it be possible to delete the other FARCs this SPA started up, as well? It would be most unfortunate if another FA was caught in this situation. Risker (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)That is a call for the FAR regulars to make, (or the participants in an XfD if one were initiated) not me personally. But it certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Why not ask the rest of the FAR crew, or just nominate them for deletion, and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! Hold on - I know I said I was backing away, but I just nipped back to check what I had said and I see that a FARC I opened is going to be closed on a technicality. I'd rather see this remain and be taken seriously. My point is that the FA under question needs better sourcing and needs attention. Brushing my concerns aside because I made an edit in which my prose is not appreciated is to avoid the issue completely. I am leaving this matter alone, but please reassure me that my concerns will be properly and appropriately looked into, not hidden because an incomplete FARC was started 3 months ago. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Djacku ? That's who opened it, right? I don't think anyone wants to brush aside legitimate concerns, and genuine improvements to the article are goodness. But that's not the same as closing a FAR that never should have been opened. You don't need a FAR to propose changes that improve things. But do try to be a bit more compromising and don't revert war to preserve your changes, discuss them. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I opened it [5] and found that Djacku had made what turns out to be an incomplete attempt previously. But the process proper started with my listing. Djacku's attempt was in the void, unseen. As regards reverting rather than discussing, with respect that comment should be directed at the one who did the revert [6] initially. The guidelines do suggest discussion first. I have raised a concern with this article. I have explained why I have raised the concern. I would appreciate that concern being looked into. I will take the personal comments on the chin, and I will back away from this. Though I will be asking you question about the features articles comment on your talkpage as I'm a little perplexed by that. And, out of normal human curiosity, I will check back to see what happens with this FARC! Again, regards to all involved in this discussion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat Silk Torks has written of the school "he combines brickwork and stone in the design of the walls of the school, an early Renaissance feature" this statement is naive, over simplified and misleading and should not remain in the article. Giano (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I alone in wondering where the 'brick' is at all in this facade - from the photograph the only facing work I can see is some nice dressed ashlar (Portland?) Stonework used for the quions, bands and mouldings, infilled with rough dressed stone work of some other type? (my guess is some kind of Sandstone). Perhaps Silk might have a look at the photo and reconsider his statement? Sorry Silk, I feel compelled to revert this obvious guff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when anyone was going to spot that. It won't be Portland Stone in NZ but probably Oamaru stone. Giano (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I forgot you had stolen the Library of Alexandria. Do you think a link to Lych gate might be appropriate for the paragraph that starts "While the school's entrance arch....."? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No don't 'cos it's not a lych gate it's a Gothic "porte-something or other", the name of which escapes me. Giano (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. (the only porte-something I know is Porte-cochere and its certainly not one of them.) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what one of those is too! Check out who took the main photograph and started the page <said with no modesty whatsoever> I suppose it has to be a "gate house" but I'm sure it is inspired by a "Porte-something" vagrants used to be allowed to shelter in them at the entrance to monasteries and things. Giano (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Congratulations on the front page today Giano. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I'm happy to stop the conversation here if you like, but my idle curiousity is piqued. We've got an entrance feature that Lawson was using to a. define the entrance b. allude to a historic form. Are you saying that form is not a lych-gate because it more closely resembles something else? A quick trawl shows lychgates of all shapes and size, built in stone, wood etc. see [7] [8] and my particular favourite here. It is my understanding that monastic gateways usually also had accomodation for the porter monk - of which this is a particularly elaborate example. As the school gateway is just a simple portal I'd argue it more of the lych-gate form than anything else. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from but it does not have a gate and unless NZ schools are a lot tougher than here it was certainly not built for the repose of pall bearers. I just think it's inspiration was more monastic or domestic than provincial ecclesiastical. Giano (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and neutrality (1d). Marskell (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, am I correct that this page is more heavily web-based than usual for yours? The 1966 NZ encyclopedia seems to have a great deal, for instance. If so, I don't mind adding refs for things. Marskell (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on some ref cleanup. In the "Buildings by Lawson" section, those I cited as "Photo at ... " are only pictures and don't cite the fact that Lawson built them. That's all for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to save this, but I'm not sure that I can. All of the sources seem to lead back to: Mane-Weoki, Jonathan. (1992). The Architecture of Robert Arthur Lawson. Bulletin of New Zealand art history. Vol 13. I can't get my hands on it and I think it's required to source this. Marskell (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can this information be of use to you?[9] Yeah, I see it's $10NZ -about $8US - but you can get two volumes for $15. Risker (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pick up a copy at the University of Auckland library later today. What specific questions about the article do you have?-gadfium 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's there but not available for loan. I can read it any time, or photocopy it. 12 pages, with extensive footnoting to primary sources.-gadfium 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up! When I'm more awake, I'll ping gadfium. Marskell (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per 1c. I'm not sure if the FA criteria were different back in 2005, but after reading this I found myself unable to identify where many facts came from. Footnotes or Harvard references are scarce or absent in many cases. I recognize that significant work has been done, but there is a ways to go. I hope that the authors who have access to the sources are willing to cite them, but that doesn't appear to be the case after all the time this has run. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referencing requires only statements likely to be challenged. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait...! I have the main article, thanks to Gadfium (God bless him or her), and I think this can be worked on more. I will update. Marskell (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for Marskell to work on citations. Pending citation, I would be a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't save this one. I was hoping it would match Mane-Weoki, but it doesn't. The paper calls Otago Boys' School "collegial Gothic;" the article deemphasizes the Gothic. The paper describes the lunatic asylum as Scottish Baronial and lists The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh as inspiration; the article describes it as "loosely Gothic" and mentions Neuschwanstein Castle.

These descriptions (and others) are not completely irreconcilable, but they are dissimilar enough that I cannot confidently source the article. Giano hasn't indicated what his primary source for the architectural descriptions is. Apparently, it's not the 1992 paper. Thus I must sadly note a remove. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot the descriptions in the article be modified to accord with the newly available source? Giano was not in possession of Mane-Weoki at the time he wrote the article.-gadfium 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for sending me the paper Gadfium, I had only read exerpts before. While mostly it is very good, it does contain opinions which I find hard to understand. I would rather the page lost its FA status than had thse opinions inserted. Regarding the Asylum: I still maintain with it's corner projecting turrets and machiolations and pitches of its roofs, it is closer to the romanticised Teutonic Gothic (taken to exreme at Neuschwanstein) and the Rheinland Castles than it is to the far more austere Calvinistic Gothic of the the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. One only has to look at the greater freedom of expression, not to mention the projecting, whimsical "Juliet" balconies, in the design to see this. The utilitarian and practical ground plans may look similar but the architectural motifs are not. Then there is the matter of age. The Germanic Gothic was in vogue from the 1860s onwards, the Edinburgh hospital was begun a mere 18 months before Seacliffe. (see below) I think Scottish Baronial is a much overused term in NZ. Regarding the Boys' School: To describe the School as collegially Gothic is wrong, as the overriding motifs all belong to the English Renaissance, you can see some of the influences in the real thing here here - note: the windows, the roofs, the towers, and above all the quoining - (the corner stones)and the ballustrading on the roof between the towers - looks familiar, does it? If the only way of retaining FA status is to have debatable references, then let it go. Lawson was a great architect, who drew his inspiration from a wider variety of sources than some NZ commentators credit him. If hinting at that, not stating it as fact, means that he loses his FA status, then that is up to you.Giano (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Edinburgh hospital was begin in 1879, five years after Seacliffe in 1874. So I hope you will all have a good hard think before inserting Edinburg was the inspiration for NZ. Giano (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joopercoopers. It is well cited enough. This current fetish which demands that every passage of every article be cited, is not academic but a pedantic mockery of real academic practices. It is yet another hobgoblin of small minds. It should be rejected and ignored as should all of the ever-changing and growing horde of wrong-headed policies which will ultimately shackle Wikipedia to a rock of bland mediocrity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Giano has apparently admitted above that the article is original research, and excludes the opinion of Mane-Wheoki, the acknowledged expert on Lawson. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Mane-Wheoki no doubt is an expert, however, in this case I think Mr Mane-Wheoki is failing to look beyond Edinburgh for his inspiration. His paper is full of "probablies" and "perhapses" and assumptions though fine for a paper reading to a the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, is not concrete enough for an international encyclopedia. Furthermore Mr Mane-Wheoki does not state categorically that the Asylum was inspired by the Edinburgh Hospital but offers it as a possibility, then goes on to state that the possibility is very tenuous, as Lawson could only possibly have seen on prospective drawing of it published in a magazine some years before the first Scottish brick was even laid. That the NZ Asylum is based on a "continental" Gothic is beyond all reasonable doubt, so in no way is the article "own research" - mine or anyone others, it is an obvious fact, that does not need citing. Even if we concede that it was inspired by the Scottish Baronial, would someone care to explain the source and inspiration of Scottish Baronial, and I think you will find we come full circle. Incidentally, Mr Mane-Wheoki does mention the continental renaissance influences in the work of Lawson and his contemporaries. To claim anything in this page as own research would be putting myself on a pedestal where I don't belong. It is all glaringly obvious. Giano (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that just begs the question, Giano: if it's all so obvious why doesn't the primary source say as much? It seems to me that you've taken your own expertise and decided on what is and is not accurate. That's original research. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Marskell, you had better decide on which was the primary source because A. H. McLintock and J Mane-Wheoki are not always singing from the same hymn sheet, especially when it come to the dominating architectural motifs of a building. I've actually tired of arguing the obvious here. It is quite obvious you think all FAs should just consist of "A says this, but B says that." Sadly, when defining art (architecture is an art) that is not always possible and often the author has to find the middle road - in this the blindingly obvious - taking the Gothic back to its primary source. I would love to start a page Antipodean Gothic because it would be fascinating, and so interesting, however, no one has even coined this phrase so far, so I can't. Well that really is Wikipedia's loss, but at least someone will pay me for it, so long as I don't cast it on the ground here first. Now Marskel get on and demote the page. I think the people/Jobsworths who delight in the section of Wikipedia so much, have no idea of the harm they do. Giano (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha!: "The architectural historian, Ian Lochhead, has suggested that New Zealanders could use the term 'Antipodean Gothic' to describe that branch..." Great minds as they say.. Well good luck to you all down here in the basement. Giano (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Giano. I'm sorry that when you become angry you can't not be dismissive with people. I'm sorry I never set up a good channel with you, despite our relatively frequent e-mails. I have no intention of closing this. I don't even want to look at it.
I'm a Jobsworth? No, I tried to help with an article that you've worked on. I tried to help just because I think (well, thought) fondly of you. But if Giano's original research is enough to be an FA, then pardon me. I must have missed that ruling.
Given that you understand the English vernacular well enough when you need to, you'll understand the following just fine: if I'm a Jobsworth, then fuck you. Do you need someone to hold your hand while that's translated? No, I don't think so. Rather than piss on people, why not go piss in a corner.
And I'll say it again: the only reason I was involved in this article is because I liked you. Thanks, at least, for putting that in the past tense. Marskell (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Marskell, I should not have called you a "Jobsworth", that was uncalled for, no "ifs" and "buts," I apologise. I know you have tried hard to save this page - and my temper is getting too fraught at the edges on this. Giano (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eaton Hall - someone else's fantasy of what gothic should be about - care to spot the other styles?

Oh dear. Buildings of that century where revivalism really took a hold, are always particularlty tricky to pin down. The Victorians, bless 'em, rummaged in the dustbin of history and pulled out bits and pieces of all sorts from all manner of sources. To pin a particular building to particular bits of historical correctness was considered by some to be important (Pugin, Violet-le-duc etc.) - but for the vast majority of architects, if it worked it worked. When one academic says a building is x style another can usually easily say it is another. Is there scottish baronial in the asylum? crow-step gables, corner turret check. Does it have that romantic idealism that lead the stage set designer's fantasy at neuschwanstein? sure. The important thing here is that as WP article writers we edit - we are editors - we frequently discard the unnecessary or inaccurate, even in academic sources if we are worth our salt - how many references to the black Taj abound, even in 'academic' writings? Should we say that because lazy academics repeat a fiction, that we should too? We are allowed discretion. Editing is our function, are we suggesting that omission is original research? In matters of style, and particularly victorian style, we can't repeat every academic's 'perhaps redolent of.....' opinion, unless they've got primary sources indicating Lawson said 'mmmmmm. for the Asylum Mssrs we must use the Scottish baronial via oxford via Eaton Hall via antipodean gothic tradition.' --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, it's a rather dated view of architectural history (see pevsner etc.) that x built Grandevilla which y saw and so built Grandervilla. As Charles Jencks etc. point out - things tend to get in the air - from all over - that infect the stream of architecture. We'd had the Battle of the Styles, by this point, people were working it out, and getting liberal with it all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JC, for putting that more eloquently than I can. I'm tired of this FARC, I completely refuse to be associated with a page that labels that fantastical building as Scotish Baronial, to the exclusion of all else. I have described it is a loose amalgamation of various Gothic styles, and I stick by that. I will not sit idly by and watch an error inserted jusy so a box can be ticked to say it has a cited reference. If that is what FAs have now become, then soething is seriously wrong. Giano (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted—and returned. I shouldn't have lost my own temper and strike my most egregious paragraph. I am going to walk away from this one for a couple of days. Marskell (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Robert_Lawson_(architect)/archive1&oldid=1140391449"