Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/archive/2009

Belém Tower

I have made some improvements to this article recently. I added a lot of material to the history section. I also added the inline references. I'm not very knowledgeable about architecture, so I thought the Architecture portal would be a good place to make sure that everything was on track in that area. Most of that section was already written in the past and I just added references.

I am just curious what needs to be improved and what has been overlooked according to the wikipedia style guidelines. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see the article expand. Few notes on possible improvements:

Done Style description could be more precise and less confusing: first the lead states: It was built in the early sixteenth century and incorporates a variety of architectural styles. The tower is a prominent example of the Portuguese Manueline style, than the history section states During the renovation, many neo-Manueline decorative elements were added to the building. If it is a proeminent example of Manueline, than it cannot have that many different syles at the same time. It would be better to describe the different layers of architectural style in chronologic order.
Done There should be given an explanation of the connection to Jerónimos Monastery which lead to the joint World Heritage Listing.
A short section about conservation and restoration could be relevant. There are already references relating to this provided within the article. (GA - broad coverage)
The use of exotic decorative elements (rhinoceros) should be put in the broader contex of portuguese architecture: when did it started?, did it continue?. (FA)
Done The section title Art and architecture could be simply Architecture since no desciption of other, independent, art forms is provided. Sculpture seems to pe integral part of architecture.
Done A wikilink to Architecture of Portugal would be useful.
Done Dimensions should be provided in metres first (and feet in brackets), per WP:UNIT.
Done Captions should be succint, generally no more than three lines, per WP:CAP.

The article quality was obviously heavily overrated to "B" in 2007 when it actually was only "Start". Now is "C", but I will leave it as it is for now, since it looks it might reach "B" soon anyway :). Elekhh (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Elekhh. I have addressed some of these issues but lack the architectural knowledge and interest for some others. I attempted point number 1, but am again not strong architecturally so am not completely confident in that change. For that reason I also did not address points 3 and 4. I addressed 5-8, but I could not find any information regarding point 2 looking at the UNESCO material. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference for the joint listing and added it to the article to address point 2. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already looks pretty good, so I would suggest nominating it for GA. Elekhh (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Bangladesh

This article needs to be reviewed..plz provide suggestions. User:Souvik.arko 19 October 2009

Looks very promissing with a lot of info already there. I would suggest following improvements for a start:

improve image captions by adding year of building, and name of architect if known;
find more images representing the early history (7-15th century) of Bangladeshi architecture;
improve wikilinks: there is no need to link a word several times in a section of the article (i.e. architect) but is important to have links to all other related articles (i.e.British India, etc.)
improve text so that is less focus on history and more on architecture;
revise the last section on contemporary architecture to be more encyclopedic according to Wiki Guidelines;
provide complete refernece info for books (year of publication, editor; ISBN) and if possible use more references; Elekhh (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Dodd

I have so much more information and additional photos I could post concerning the architect and his work. I welcome suggestions on what kinds of data and materials would increase the value of this article for the reader. Also, of course, suggestions on better presentation, clarity, formatting. Chroniclerk (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article, made a few changes and suggestions. Chroniclerk has greatly improved it in some ways. Some areas are still lacking in refs.

The article is currently rated as a start, but no longer is. (No, I got that wrong. It is start as a biography article). It is a C, and soon to be a B Class article, once properly referenced.

If this article is to be a A Class Architecture article, then it needs more work on the actual architecture. More description of style, and a "statement of significance" such as a short direct quote from a register of historic buildings.

Amandajm (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]