Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/archive/2010

Toma T. Socolescu

I have written the English version of this article.

I am the author of the French version.

However, my level of English is not as good as it should for this kind of publication. I there need help to improve the level of English of the text.

Thank you! --Cbrajon (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the article, it's obviously well researched. I'm happy to do a copy edit in order to improve the English. However, I do have some comments that may help you improve it prior to me doing that:

1. The LEAD section at the beginning of the article should be able to act as a summary of the important aspects and should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. In this case you could write a few short paragraphs.
2. There are couple of unreferenced paragraphs at the beginning of the article. Certainly I think that the sentence in the Biography stating he is still considered should have a reference.
3. consider changing the sections with bullet points into plain paragraphs as the text will be easier to read. Refer to the Manual of Style for help MOS
4. improve the wikilinks: there is no need to link a word several times in a section, for example, Ploieşti.
5. Non-English sources: in the legacy section the quotation extract written in French is maybe not helpful to English language readers, it could be that you provide a translation in the footnotes if you think that it is important. There is some guidance at Non English Sources
6. external links: try and reduce the number of external links, especially those that point to sites that English readers can't understand.

Kenchikuben (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward R. Hills House

I have recently had one peer review of this article in the main Wikipedia peer review, but I am looking for one more opinion before I take it to a GA review. Since this is an article of an architectural work, this seems to be an appropriate place to get an opinion. Edward R. Hills House is my first completed major contribution so I will take any notes on style. In particular, I would like to know if my lead section is adequate. The last reviewer thought that it was a little short, but I am not sure what else would be appropriate to include. I am still experimenting with different citation styles and I am not completely satisfied with the lengthiness of my notes and reference section. I might go back to a single reference list with one entry for each page of each source rather than concerning myself with consecutively numbered footnotes. Otherwise, the article is as complete as I intend it to be at this point but I will take any comments and suggestions throughout.

Thank you in advance A.Fox 02:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good work, and particularly nice to see the article illustrated with all the plans. I found and uploaded a view of the norh facade, which potentially could be used as well. I think the article is very close to GA as is, however as always improvements are possible. Below some suggestions:

• There is an inconsistency in the structuring of the article in that the two sections before Wright's design are treated as sub-sections of Early History, while the three after are stand alone. I think for consistency either all history sections should be subsections of History, or probably better if the post-Wright sections are grouped in a similar way as Early History.
• The last image in the article is confusing as it goes back in time. Instead I think it would be better to show one of the mature Prairie houses, since there are many refences to these in the article, or potentially both a pre and a post Edward R. Hills House example to illustrate how this house represents a transition.
• I believe there should be more information about the urban context, after all this building is notable as a "contributing property" to a historic district. The reader should be able to understand how is it contributing and to what. Maybe it could be explained as a short section upfront titled Location or Neighbourhood character.

Hope these suggetions are helpful. --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I will definitely work on the section structuring; its inconsistency didn't really occur to me until you made that point. Hence it is to get second (or third, etc.) opinions on one's work. I think I can work in some information on the neighborhood (interestingly, you can see in the talk section that a previous contributor removed this info after receiving feedback from the last GA reviewer). It is probably worth noting that the house is on the same street as six other Wright houses and another Prairie house by Tallmadge and Watson.

Also, thank you for condensing the redundant notes; that is something I've been meaning to do for a couple weeks now.

A.Fox 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

When considering the 2007 GA review, note that some MOS guidelines changed since than and that not all reviewers have the same expertise. --Elekhh (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not quite sure if this is the correct category, but as it is an article about a historic lost building of London in which several historic events took place, I thought it would probably be the most appropriate. Old St Paul's Cathedral has been a "Good Article" for a while, but I've been significantly expanding it recently, and would quite like some feedback as to whether there are any additions or improvements that would be required for it to stand a chance as as FA candidate. Thanks, Bob talk 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right of the peer review page) shows two disambiguation links; please fix them.

• Checklinks show 2 dead links; please fix them.

Lede

• "... third longest church ..."

  I heard of largest or tallest buildings but longest (in which sense/direction) seems a bit weird. Could this be elaborated?

  Not really sure how to put it any other way. It means from end to end, in the same way that a bridge can be the longest.

• "... with the nave aisle "Paul's walk" becoming known as the centre of business and the London grapevine."

  Aside from the noun plus -ing construct, is there really a marketplace within the church (seems a bit incredible on first reading)?

  Haha, it's rather a wonderful image isn't it? It certainly appears so. I especially like the 14th century account of people firing arrows at crows nesting in the roof.

  Leads me to think of how incredulous it seems the bishop would be holding a sermon at one end while vegetable vendors and butchers ply their business at the other end, but since it is the "third longest church"... Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... the churchyard, St Paul's Cross became the stage for ..."

  I think there is a missing comma...

  Corrected.

Construction

• "Bishop Maurice began the building, although it was primarily under his successor, Richard de Beaumis, that work fully commenced. He was assisted by King Henry I, ... He also gave Beaumis tithes on fish ... Beaumis also gave ..."

  Note the ambiguities: who are the "he"s?

  Corrected.

• "Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, was appointed to administer the affairs of St. Paul's, and almost immediately he had to deal with the aftermath of a fire which broke out at London Bridge in 1135, spreading over much of the city, damaging and delaying the construction of the cathedral."

  Long sentence that can likely be broken down into two sentences (also note the several segments in the second train of thought; it could be rephrased).

  Corrected.

• "Following complaints from the dispossessed parishioners, until the reign of Edward VI the east end of the west crypt was allotted to them as their parish church."

  There seems to be a missing comma, which would have made this a clearer sentence.

  Corrected.

  Umm, I do not see it... Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I've rephrased the sentence now anyway.

• "... however, Wren judged that an overestimate ..."

  Who is Wren? He should not be introduced later in the last part of the article if earlier sections mention him.

  Clarified.

  I think it would be better to introduce him as the king's surveyor here as well. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  Mentioned.

• "Benham notes that the cathedral ..."

  Similarly, who is Benham?

  Clarified.

• What makes John Harvey an authority on churches or architecture (state so)?

  Small note (although he doesn't have a WP page).

Interior

• "The walls were lined with the tombs of mediæval bishops and nobility. In addition to the shrine of Erkenwald, two Anglo-Saxon kings were buried inside; Sebbi, King of the East Saxons, and Ethelred the Unready."

  Source? See also issues below.

  Merged with later paragraph (and cited)

• "... with the tombs of mediæval bishops ...", "... several incidents of mediæval intrigue ..."

  Why is it "mediæval" and not "mediaeval"?

Corrected.

• "The riot was only halted by Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury."

  How did he stop the riot? Physically, with a speech, or just by showing up?

  It's not entirely clear, due to the slightly infuriating "Victorian Establishment" opinionating by Benham. (I assume the Archbishop just turned up and told them to clear off, or there would be dire consequences in the next life!)

  Well, it cannot be helped if we have no source that explains what happened. Leaving this unstruck in case someone can help. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Several kings of the Middle Ages lay in state ..."

  A short two-sentence paragraph that could be merged with the Anglo-Saxon kings mentioned earlier or have the two ideas merged with the last paragraph.

  Merged, as above.

Paul's Walk

• "... the first reference to the nave, "Paul's walk", being used as a marketplace ... , with the bishop issuing a letter ..."

  Two noun plus -ing constructs in a sentence...

  Revised - I think it reads better now.

• Why are there spaced ellipses, and ellipses without spaces between them and surrounding words?

  Corrected (it's because that section was borrowed from the Paul's Walk article)

Decline

• Why is St Paul's Cross linked here, whereas previous mentions as Paul's Cross are not? Linking should be for the first mention of the term.

  I've put in an earlier link, although I have kept the link here as it was really in the Reformation that it became an important preaching site.

• "... the scrofulous practices ..."

  Any simpler word to describe the practices?

  Slightly disappointed to lose this!

• "... original purpose as a religion building."

  Religious building? Place of religion?

  Corrected.

The Great Fire

• "Building work on the new cathedral began in June 1675."

  Not a great way to end the story; did anyone bemoan the passing of the church? What was the new church? Did it invite comparisons with this old cathedral?

Good idea for a new section - I gather quite a lot of Londoners still regret the Wren cathedral (I don't like it much either, but that's nothing to do with it). I suppose I originally didn't want to regurgitate stuff from the main St Paul's page, but a short section with a few contemporary opinions might be good.

I have added a small section here, mainly using material from the main St Paul's page. I didn't want to go overboard, though. Bob talk 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. It does not leave one hanging over what happened next. Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:St Paul's old. From Francis Bond, Early Christian Architecture. Last book 1913..jpg

  Did Francis Bond draw this? If so, when did Bond die? If not, who is the artist? Page, publisher, location?

  I didn't upload this, so I'm not entirely sure if Francis Bond is the artist (it looks like an older engraving, if anything), but Bond died in 1918, so his book is safely in the public domain.

  Not quite; without knowing who the author is and with the book's publishing in 1913, the PD-old tag is wrong. What it can unequivocally qualify for is {{PD-1923}}, which implies public domain in the United States. Images on Commons must be public domain in both United States and the image's country of origin (which in this case is the United Kingdom). United Kingdom does not care about publishing before 1923; it is more concerned about authorship, and in this case, if the author lives beyond 1939, then the image is still copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Moving the image to Wikipedia and using {{PD-1923}} (with a {{Do not move to Commons}}) would solve this issue. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Old St Paul's.jpg

  Who says this is a PD-old image? Bob Castle claims he is the author and he is certainly not dead beyond 70 years to have uploaded it.

  Bob, you need not put a GFDL statement here; now the issue is where can it be verified that this is Hollar's work? Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I cannot seem to find the correct attribution for this, so I've decided to remove it. Annoyingly, the original C.17 book about the cathedral doesn't seem to have been digitised yet, so I'm not sure if this is Hollar's work or not. The little plates around the top suggest that it is. Anyway, to replace it, I've made my own "photographic reconstruction" based on a 1908 model. Do you think that works better? (best to view it at the smaller size - the scale problems are quite significant at higher resolution!)

  Unfortunately, the photographs are derivative works of the model (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). We need to know when JB Thorpe died as well (for the reasons explained in the above image). It might be that this photograph could qualify for freedom of panorama (UK rules that photographs of 3D works installed in the public do not violate the copyrights of the subject's author); however, it seems that this model's location in the museum is not permanent.[1] Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  JB Thorpe was the manufacturer (a bit like Bassett-Lowke, for example), so it probably would have been created by unnamed craftsmen working for that firm. The UK certainly has freedom of panorama (so there's no problem in photographing, say, The Angel of the North), and if it was produced in 1908 for the Franco-British Exhibition that's over 100 years ago.

  The UK duration for copyright of a corporate (anonymous) artistic work (non-photograph) is 70 years after first publishing, 70 years after it was first made public (after 1969), or until 31 Dec 2039 (See National Archives Copyright leaflet). Publishing involves the public distribution of several copies, and as there is only one scale model, it has never been published. Since it is made public (exhibition) before 1969, it would be copyrighted until 2039. Is JB Thorpe still operating today? It would be better to contact them and establish who was the craftsman, whether he was doing a work for hire or still retains copyright, and his lifespan. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  If they do exist, they certainly don't have a website. I gather they were an architectural firm with a sideline in making models. It doesn't sound like they operated after WWII, though, and the only other evidence I have for their company is another Great Fire related exhibit and the 1930 model for Lutyens' abandoned Roman Catholic cathedral in Liverpool, as well as brief mentions here and here. If the Lutyens model is anything to go by, a group of craftsmen probably created the Old St Paul's model, rather than just one. The Museum of London, who own the model, appear to encourage photography for educational purposes. As it's a photograph of a model "first made public" in 1908, it would seem to qualify for freedom of panorama, though - Wikipedia has lots of pictures of public Henry Moore or Eric Gill sculptures, for example. Alternatively, I could always send an email to the museum to see what they think? Bob talk 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  Freedom of panorama is given only to permanent installations (i.e. the work could only or is only intended to exist at that location). Evidence to support this might be required at FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tosca/archive1). As for claiming corporate or anonymous authorship, a reasonable amount of effort is often wanted (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1). Also see User talk:Elcobbola#Work for hire - UK for corporate copyright. Jappalang (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  I sent off an email to the museum earlier this evening asking about photograph permissions, etc, so I guess we'll have to see what they say as to whether it stays or goes. I'll post the reply once I've received it. Bob talk 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting to hear back about this. Bob talk 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Still haven't heard anything back from Museum of London about this - not quite sure why they haven't replied, so presumably they're not that bothered. Bob talk 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:StPaul'sCross.jpg

  Who is the artist? When did he die? How else do we verify that the painting is in public domain due to 70 years after the passing of its artist (especially since the named source is restricted to members only)?

  I'll look into these on Commons.

Much of the prose is good with a few niggles above. Regarding the noun plus -ing constructs, a read of User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing could help. The non-compliance with MOS (ellipses, old characters) should be resolved. Perhaps get a non-involved editor to polish the article with a copy-edit. The image issues would become a concern at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a really useful review - thanks for all your suggestions. Bob Castle claims he is the author and he is certainly not dead beyond 70 years to have uploaded it. Whoops, obviously used the wrong template. "I'm not dead yet!" Bob talk 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have hopefully been able to implement most of Jappalang's suggestions, but feel free to make other suggestions. Thanks Bob talk 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put forward a copyedit request, although somebody did wave an automated wand over it last night. Bob talk 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the first section, is this the 4th church on the hill and the fourth to house saint Erkenwald? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCopter (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that is confusing. Clarified. Bob talk 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for giving it a copy edit. Bob talk 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Engraving of Old St. Paul's prior to 1561, with intact spire

With regards to this picture, dates have been used in a way that can only be described as a little lax.

• The caption reads "Engraving of Old St. Paul's prior to 1561, with intact spire". The implication here is that the engraving is earlier than 1561. The caption needs to state clearly that this represents St Paul's as it appeared prior to 1561.
• The alt caption reads: A 17th century engraving of Old St Paul's cathedral seen from above. The building is in a cross shape, architecturally rectangular and very long west to east, with flying buttresses along the quire. In the centre is a square central tower, which in this picture has a tall spire. The building looms over the old City of London before the Great Fire.

How do we know this is a 17th century engraving? If this is a fact, then why isn't it included in the regular caption?

• The illustration itself is taken from a book published in 1913 (the last of a series). Since the illustration is very typical of 19th century encyclopedic illustration, and demonstrates the Victorian passion for archaeological reconstruction, why does the alt caption propose a 17th century date for this artwork?

Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment concerning length, English cathedrals tended to be very long compared with those elsewhere, possibly because of the weather, so that processions could be held inside, around the cathedral, rather than outside, as would be the case in Italy. In consequence, England produced the longest medieval cathedrals and abbeys in the world, Winchester, St Albans, Old St Paul's, Lincoln, York, Ely, Canterbury and Durham all being over 500 feet long.

"St Paul's was now the third-longest church in Europe.[11] Excavations in 1878 by Francis Penrose showed it was 586 feet (179 m) long (excluding the porch later added by Inigo Jones) and 100 feet (30 m) wide (290 feet across the transepts and crossing)."

What I want to know is this: The statement "St Paul's was now..." refers to a date in the 1300s. If St Paul's was indeed the third longest at that point in time, then which two churches were longer? Not Old St Peter's, and not the newly built Florence. Not Seville, which has the largest area, or the mighty Milan which is 515 feet and very wide. Not Cologne, which didn't have a nave. It seems a very odd statement.

In the 1600s Old St Paul's was surpassed by St Peter's, and then in the 20th century, by Liverpool. But from the early 1300s until the building of the nave of St Peter's, it must surely have been the world's longest church.

Amandajm (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Bob talk 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for Featured Article status, once it is of sufficient quality to be pass. I'm willing to do all the legwork and make whatever improvements are necessary.

Thanks for the feedback, ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Noraft, I welcome your ambitious goal and appreciate your willingness to improve this article. I had a quick look to it and can suggest several areas of possible improvement to start with:
  • Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church?
  • I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.
  • A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.
  • Imagery:
    • The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible.
    • The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW.
    • An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.
  • Is the building currently heritage listed?

Hope these comments will be useful. Elekhh (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are both helpful and appreciated. I'll get to work on improving the images. I'm not sure which dimension makes it the largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture, but I think that was taken from a literary source, so I'll verify that. The building is listed as a Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong province (which is why I gave it High importance under the architecture wikiproject). I got this piece of information from a sign on the church grounds, of which I have a photograph. I think I can cite a sign, right? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have altered the historic image, but am unsure of whether to upload it to Wikimedia Commons as a replacement of the current (cocked) image, or if I should upload it as a separate image. If I replace the old one, the cropping removes the Bundesarchiv registration number, which materially alters the image, I think. How should I proceed? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered my own question. A retouched version of the image is now in the article. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. Citing it is akin to citing Wikipedia. You really need to find a new source to replace it. Nothing else jumps out at me in the sourcing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the facts mentioned in that translation (that the crosses were removed by the Red Guard, etc) are sourced from other (more reliable) sources, so the factual accuracy is not in much dispute. The Baidu Baike translation gives an interesting first-person account of what happened, which is why I had it translated into English. If the facts in the translation are verifiable, do you really think it needs to be removed? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why not use Baike as a bibliography- track down, read, and cite the sources they're using? You will not get this through FAC citing a website that can be changed by anyone. (In other words, citing it is as much a problem as citing the Chinese Wikipedia. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't list any references. That's a shame that it won't go through FAC, because everything it mentions is verified elsewhere, in other (better) sources. I really think it adds depth and color to the article. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But "colourful" cannot replace verifiabile, at least not on Wikipedia. This should have been picked up at the GA assessment already. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that all the facts in that account have been verified. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How? If they've all been verified in reliable secondary-sources, then why is the citation to a user-generated tertiary source still necessary? (I'm also mildly concerned the GA reviewer didn't catch this) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The other references in the article verify the facts of the account (church defaced, crosses cut off, etc). The user-generated tertiary source provides a first-hand account, which I think adds depth and color. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tasks

I've organized this section into tasks, so I can easily track what has been done and what is yet to do.

• Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church? All of the above, from what I've been able to tell.
• I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.  Done
• A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.  Done
• The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible.  Not done Having trouble finding another good lead image.
• The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW.  Fixed
• An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.  Done
• Is the building currently heritage listed? Yes and now stated in the article.

• If you happen to find information about the year of listing, it would be valuable. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Will see what I can do. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. In Discussion

Nefirious's thoughts on the article

• I think enough has been done in order to improve the article, the article has all the requirments for GA status. Hence it should be given what it deserves. If the editors promise to improve the article further and take it to FA status. Protect the wonderful article from vandalism. It is neither too small nor too big, it is just the size it is required to be. Nefirious (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. To clarify, the article was given GA status before this peer review was opened, in order to prepare it for FA candidacy. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Antonin Raymond

I have significantly expanded this stub and was hoping to get it to Good Article status. I would be grateful if somebody could read it through, rate it for me and let me know how I may improve it. (I do also have it on the Requests for feedback page, but the volunteers over there seem to be snowed under with new articles and I thought that some more specialist feedback would be better). Thanks Kenchikuben (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the article with great interest, about this extremely active and very influential architect. His biography is certainly not an usual one, and I think it poses a particular challenge to summarise in an encyclopedic style, and not let dominate the article. I hope there will be a lot of interest in reading, reviewing and improving this article. As it stands, I think it provides a very good introduction to the subject, but needs further work for a comprehensive overview. My suggestions are:

• The lead should provide a better summary of the subject, in about 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
• There could be more written about his architecture: for instance the awarded Nanzan University Chapel isn't mentioned at all, nor is his design for the Golconde dormitory in India.
• I find the legacy section too short for somebody considered "the father of modern architecture in Japan". His influence on Japanese architects would need to be explained here. I also just discovered that his last company in Japan still exists. This probably should be also mentioned.
• As any article about architecture, illustrations would be very useful. I know this will be a difficult task, as is generally hard to obtain free images of residential architecture, however it should be possible for his public buildings. The Japanese Wiki article has several images which could be useful in the absence of better quality ones, so if somebody with Japanese knowledge can figure out if those images are consistent with wikimedia commons policy, it would be good to import them to commons. (This is however not a GA criteria, there are even FAs with only one image).
• The infobox indicates nationality as American. I wonder if he also retained his Czech citizenship given that he was honorary consul of the Czechoslovak Republic.
• There is an inconsitency between the last statement that he died in Langhorne and the lead+infobox indicating New Hope.

Hope these comments help, and don't get scared by the critique, some of these issues are beyond GA. --Elekhh (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Elekhh. I'll improve the Lead and the Legacy sections and check the nationality. As you say, the photos are a problem, but I'll look at the Japanese Wiki article. Kenchikuben (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to address the points you raised above:

• I have added more text to the LEAD.
• I have included more information about his architecture, including Nanzan University and Chapel and have added a section about his work in India.
• The Legacy section has been renamed and I have concentrated on his influences derived from his use of concrete.

I also amended the inconsistencies and added a line about his naturalization. I've also added a section about the influence of his wife. Thanks for adding the additional photos. I've also found a couple more from wikimedia commons and uploaded another from Wiki Japan (it had a Creative Commons license).Kenchikuben (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good progress, but I am not sure of two images you added: the image of the Tokyo Woman's Christian University does not seem to be representing his work: it simply does not look like his architecture. It might be an altered building or a different building in the same complex. If you're not sure, better remove it. It hasn't been included in the Japanese wiki article either. By the Nanzan University image I am again not sure: the red/orange building seems to be more recent, while the concrete building is barely visible. If you wish to nominate it at GA this month you'll most certainly get a reviewer quickly, as result of the current GAN backlog elimination drive. I think the article has a fair chance. Elekhh (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Altes Museum

Hello, I was hoping for some feedback on this article, which I recently expanded significantly with information from the German Wikipedia article. I've also added references. I'm no architecture expert, nor am I particularly familiar with how one should write an architecture article, so any suggestions or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. S. K. Wirth 12:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenzo Tange

I have recently expanded this article and I'm hoping to improve it up to GA status. As such I would be grateful for some feedback. His latter years are not covered very well (certainly post 1970) although I have added some information about the Tokyo Government Hall. This is mainly because most published material on Tange concentrates on his early work and his involvement with the Metabolists. I'm interested to know whether anybody thinks whether this matters or not? Also, I have more info that I could add on Skopje and the Expo but I don't want to expand these to the extent that they become articles in themselves. Any help appreciated.Kenchikuben (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Full coverage is not as important as having proper coverage of the most important parts of his career, so in that regard I think it passess that particular GA criteria. However for a more solid GA status it would be beneficial to have a bit more information in the "later career" section. I was thinking also that maybe the article could be better structured: currently there are 13 sections in a row. Maybe it could be organised in three main sections (formative years/maturity/late career), if any source supporting such a structure can be identified. --Elekhh (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)