Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/archive/2011

Japanese architecture

I've rewritten the pre-Meiji eras to include in-line references. I've expanded the Meiji, Taisho and Early Showa periods, added the Late Showa and Early Heisei periods and expanded the lead. For the earlier periods I removed some of the text related to Buddhist rituals as I felt it was over-specific. I've tried to keep the content broad with particular reference to traditional architectural elements. The Heisei period is probably the most contentious period as it is could be a quite subjective topic regarding who is actually included; again I've kept it relatively broad and introduced both well-known and unusual architects. I haven't covered everyone - but I think to do so would be beyond the scope of this article.

I'm keen to nominate this article as a GA. As such I'd welcome feedback from editors about the balance of the article. Also, what is your feeling about the number of pictures in the galleries? I have tried where possible to use the images in the gallery to illustrate those examples in the text that do not have wikilinks to other articles, as I feel this is important. I'd like to know what you think. I'm happy to go with consensus. All help appreciated. Kenchikuben (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great article, overall. Very extensive, lots of pictures, and a definite improvement over what it was before.

Some comments:

I think the first few sentences of the article should be more all-encompassing. Perhaps, something like, "Japanese architecture has traditionally been typified by wooden structures, elevated slightly off the ground, with tiled roofs. Sliding doors (fusuma) were used in place of walls, allowing the internal configuration of a space to be customized to different occasions. People usually sat on cushions or otherwise on the floor, traditionally; chairs and high tables were, with some exceptions, not widely used until the 19th century. Since the 19th century, however, Japan has incorporated much of Western, modern, and post-modern architecture into its own designs, and is today a leader in cutting-edge architectural design and technology." And then you can start going into the brief historical summary you've already got.

(Let me come back in a little bit to comment on the main sections. BRB.) LordAmeth (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry for that delay. Thank you again for taking on such a project - someone's gotta do it, and you've made a good effort. I notice, however, that the overall style of the writing doesn't sound properly formal or scholarly. I know this is certainly subjective, but, to take just one example, the sentence "During the Yayoi period the Japanese people began to interact with the Chinese Han Dynasty whose knowledge and technical skills began to influence them" might be alternatively phrased as, "The Yayoi period saw increased contact with Han dynasty China. Significant Chinese influence is thus seen in both architectural style and technology in this period" or something to that effect.

It can be difficult to describe architectural styles purely in words, and it can be difficult to extensively describe a single style without the list of details seeming dry and boring, but both of these things, I think should be main focuses of this article. .. I guess bamse's question "What do we want this article to be?" comes to mind again. Is this article meant to touch upon styles briefly, providing an overview (such as it does in the currently two-sentence description of shinden-zukuri in the Heian pd section)? Or should it go into more extensive detail, describing styles such as shinden-zukuri in enough detail that we can really understand the concept more fully, and can see how the Phoenix Hall, for example, not just in its use of "symmetrical buildings placed as arms that defined an inner garden," but in a great many of its features, typifies the style?
Taking care with italics and capitalization also helps a text look better. Japanese words such as kofun and haniwa should be italicized, and not capitalized (except, of course, at the start of a sentence). Similarly, grammar and sentence structure could afford to be cleaned up in a lot of places. For example (from the Meiji section): "A good example of which is..." should never start a sentence, but should be a continuation of the previous sentence. Or, you can say "A good example of this is...". The same sort of thing can be seen in the Azuchi section, in the sentences "Matsumoto, Kumamoto and Himeji ... are excellent examples of the castles of the period. Whilst Nijo Castle in Kyōto..." - Comparisons using "whilst" can only be made within the same sentence, e.g. "A, B, and C are excellent examples of this, whilst D is something else." ... Or at least that's how "while" is used in US English; it might be different in Commonwealth English, but I doubt it.
I agree with User:bamse on the idea that the article should try to focus on architectural (stylistic) trends, and not too much on individual buildings. This can be difficult, as so many textbooks and other sources do focus on individual buildings, and because for some periods or styles all we have left to go on is one or two famous extant examples, and because, of course, we do need to use examples. (In the Heian period section, where we discuss Kukai and the Shingon temples, it would be good I think to at least mention by name a few examples of temples in that style or mode.) But, still, difficult though it may be, it might be good if the article could try to focus more on stylistic trends, omitting for the most part details about the history of individual buildings, the sculptures within them, etc. ... Though, that said, discussion of individual buildings can be used to describe specific developments or innovations - a sentence or two couldn't hurt discussing the unique azekura-zukuri construction of the Shôsôin, whose log-cabin-like structure keeps humidity out during the summer (when the logs swell, shutting out gaps between them) and allow in cold, dry air during the winter (when the logs constrict and open up gaps between them), contributing to the conservation of the treasures contained within.
In the Kamakura-Muromachi section, it might be good to expand further on Zen style, including the key feature that Zen temples shared many features with Chinese buildings, and contrasted with most other Japanese buildings, for example, in the use of stone floors (not elevated wooden floors) where one did not remove one's shoes, as well as chairs.
The Azuchi-Momoyama section needs a lot of work, if you don't mind my saying so. One, it mentions changes from the shoin style, though this was not mentioned in any detail earlier (read: shoin-zukuri should be described in more detail in the Muromachi section). Two, it says that the Onin War led to the rise in castle architecture, and I'm not entirely sure this is true. The article on Japanese castles which I wrote (though it has been considerably edited since I last touched it), discusses various kinds of fortresses & castles dating as far back as the Yamato period, and describes castles of the Kamakura period as well. It was not, so far as I know, and I could be wrong, the Onin War or the early Sengoku that really saw any major innovations in castle architecture, but rather the Azuchi-Momoyama period itself. Third, the period is itself named after Azuchi castle and Fushimi-Momoyama castle. These should probably be discussed in greater detail as examples of the great shifts and innovations of the time - Azuchi as a model of the archetypal type of castle that was to come, with stone foundations and tall tenshu and a half dozen other features that don't immediately come to mind; Fushimi-Momoyama, and Hideyoshi's Jûrakudai, as examples of the incredible levels of opulence that were seen in some of the mansions/palaces/castles of this period, a predecessor also to the Edo period castle, more opulent residence (read: mansion or daimyo's palace) than truly a defensive fortress. Himeji, Kumamoto, Matsumoto, and Nijô are all Edo period castles - the focus should be on Azuchi & Momoyama in this section, I think.
The statement about one castle per domain belongs, I am almost positive, to the Edo period and not to the Azuchi-Momoyama period. Similarly, rather than the one sentence at the end of the Edo period section about the end of sankin kotai, there should be more discussion of the effects of sankin kotai during the period, before it was abolished. Daimyo mansions in Edo, the limit of one castle per domain; expansion of travel both for daimyo & their entourages, and for commoners, leading to the greater rise of post towns, inns, and all that. .. The discussion of machiya is excellent, though this is also the period when geisha and courtesans ("teahouses"; the Yoshiwara) arise, not to mention Kabuki theatre, all things that could also be discussed in this section.
I can't really speak to the more modern sections, but they look good. A lot better, I think, than the earlier sections. One question, though: Is it true that, as it says here in the Meiji section, "Early Meiji Architecture was initially influenced by colonial architecture in Chinese treaty ports"? Or was it simply that early Meiji architecture closely resembled treaty port architecture because it came about in a very similar way? That is to say, was it a matter of architects in Japan (especially Japanese architects) consciously emulating what they saw in the treaty ports of China? Or was it that Western architects, some of whom happen to have been based in, or born & raised in, the treaty ports, brought their Western architectural styles to Japan, and, combining these with Japanese styles or tastes, ended up creating something that ended up closely resembling what the same process had created in China?

All in all, an excellent start, and I thank User:Kenchikuben for the personal invitation to offer my humble thoughts, such as they are. I wish you (and everyone / anyone else working on this article) luck as you proceed forward! LordAmeth (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (mainly on the old pre-Meiji part as I don't know much about modern architecture. Writing this from memory, so there might well be mistakes.) First of all, I am happy that you are improving this not-easy and very broad article. Thanks! All of the following are suggestions in view of GA

I don't mind image galleries, but as far as I understand they are discouraged in wikipedia at least for GA/FA/FL. In any case the current galleries often show similar buildings (2 pagodas, several raised floor buildings,...) and should be shortened. It would be good to have images of interior (fusuma, tatami,...) and details (e.g. tokyō) for variety.
Just a question for understanding, what is the scope of the article? Architecture in Japan or architecture by Japanese architects or both?
Not too fond of the lead. I think it goes a bit too much into detail at times (e.g. Nara street layout) and lacks breadth. I'd focus on the main directions and mention that there were Chinese (and Korean?) influences for some periods but that Chinese architecture was adapted to local (Japanese) customs. LordAmeth's suggestion above sounds good as well.
I've seen many starting dates for the Jōmon period in literature, not sure whether 5000 BCE was among them.
"Later in the period, a colder climate with greater rainfall led to a decline in population which contributed to an interest in ritual." Not sure how a decline in population resulted in interest in ritual. In any case needs a ref.
For GA, you probably need some more inline citations, i.e. not only at the end of paragraphs.
Very short paragraphs should be merged or expanded.
"Asuka and Nara architecture" is too detailed (why explaining the content of the Shosoin, etc) and drifting a bit away in my opinion (why mention a sculpture?). I think the start is good, saying that temple building is characteristic for this period. I'd then go on to describe roughly what these temples looked like: modelled after Chinese temples, strict layout (straight lines, ordered,...) with chumon, corridor, pagoda and worship hall. Examples of Horyu-ji and Todaiji is also very good. I'd mention shichidō garan as well.
Some references need publisher information.

To be continued. From reading up to the Nara period, in my opinion the main issue is that the prose sometimes drifts away from the main topic. We can't aim for covering all structures in detail here. Instead the main trends in architecture should be presented. Answering the following questions for each period should be a good starting point: What type of buildings (temples/residences/...) are characteristic for the period? Are there new trends emerging during this period? What do they look like? Are they imported or modifications of existing styles? Provide examples for these styles. bamse (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) continued...[reply]

In "Heian period", I'd mention "Wayō" and contrast the architecture mountain temples of Shingon/Tendai with those in Nara. Also give more details on what this new style entailed. There should be more about architecture than about Shingon in general.
Not sure about correctness of: "At this time the architectural style of Buddhist temples began to influence that of the Shintō shrines." Possibly it happened earlier!?
In Kamakura/Muromachi period, I'd mention "sōan"-style for teahouses.

Don't really know much about Edo period and beyond, so stop here. Ah, and feel free to copy from or be inspired by texts in here, here, here, here or here or here. bamse (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Personally I would favour an article structure as in Chinese architecture focusing on key elements and ordered by type of structure (Commoner, Imperial, Religious) rather than the chronological treatment. On the other hand, some elements of Japanese architecture appeared in more than one type of buildings, so I am not sure whether this idea is a good one. bamse (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: First of all let me say I know something only of Japanese religious architecture, but not much about the rest. I will therefore comment only the first few sections until the Edo period. After Lord Ameth and Bamse, I don't find much to say, however.

Bamse doesn't favor a chronological approach, but I find it inevitable. Perhaps I am wrong, but it's impossible for example to forget that the immensely influential Zen architecture was the last to arrive, several centuries after the others.
I think that, early in the article, two things should be made clear. First, that because much of what was best in the country in terms of skills was poured into the building of temples and because Buddhism was the vehicle that brought large-scale change to Japan, Buddhist architecture is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of Japanese traditional architecture, Shinto architecture included. This is mentioned in passing, but should be made explicit and exemplified to explain why most of the article is actually about Buddhist architecture. BTW, the relationship between Buddhist and Shinto architectures is not completely outside the scope of the article, because the clear separation between the two is recent. Perhaps you could mention that the relevance of Buddhist architecture to Japanese architecture is further increased by the fact that, structurally, most Shinto shrines are really Buddhist temples. But I may be overestimating the issue, one I am fond of.

Second, the article should have near its beginning a section which explains what are the common elements of Japanese architecture. I already did the job in the article Buddhist temples in Japan. See the "Common features" section. Those I mention there are all points valid for Japanese architecture in general. The intro of the following book:

Nishi, Kazuo; Hozumi, Kazuo (1996) [1983]. What is Japanese architecture? (illustrated ed.). Kodansha International. ISBN 4770019920.

which is where the material comes from, deals specifically with this, and is highly recommended. I can send the relevant text via mail, if need be.

About when temples started to influence shrines: immediately. The very existence of permanent shrines is due to the influence of Buddhism. See the Shinto shrine article.

Last but not least, a section about Shinto architecture is essential, as there are a few, rare styles (shinmei-zukuri, taisha-zukuri, and sumiyoshi-zukuri) which are believed to predate Buddhism and are considered by some the pinnacle of Japanese architecture. Bruno Taut famously compared Ise Shrine (shinmei-zukuri) to the Parthenon. I will be available again starting next week.

Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: First of all thanks for the comprehensive feedback, it has given me lots of food for thought. As you will know by reading my user page my field of interest primarily lies in post-Meiji architecture, I knew that my pre-Meiji knowledge would be weak which is why I asked the three of you for some help. What is clear is that I need to go away and do some reading and improve my source material for this longer historical period (which I'm looking forward to)!

Rather than respond to each point that you've made, my overall thoughts are:

LordAmeth: I agree with your idea for the lead and I will rewrite it to make it more encompassing. It bothers me that the existing lead doesn't really cover this at all.
Similar to the lead I might write a General features section before delving into the architecture by period.
I think that chronologically is the best way to set out the article, like Urashimataro suggests it will allow the religious influences to permeate through into each period. It also gives a more logical progression for the post-Meiji architecture. I note that Chinese architecture gets around this by not including a contemporary section.
I agree that there is a lot of information that needs to be included to give a fuller explanation, but I'm keen to keep it succinct and not too detailed. I will follow Bamse's "five questions idea" to give more shape to the text.
My initial feeling was that the article should be about architecture in Japan and I managed to keep to this until the Heisei period went I gave some foreign examples in order to better explain the architects' work. Architecture of Denmark was recently promoted to GA and it has a similar approach with foreign work only mentioned in the contemporary section. I guess that for now I'll keep it as it is.
I definitely need better coverage of entertainment architecture like teahouses, kabuki and noh.
I'll try and get rid of the period-by-period galleries. This should be easier once I've added more content to the earlier periods as this will create more space within the body text in which to nestle photos. The problem with the galleries was that they were always in danger of getting longer as other editors added their favourite buildings!

My final question is really about something that you've all touched upon: how much is too much? Should the article be a succinct explanation of the topic that acts as a springboard to other, more detailed articles; or should it be an all-encompassing one-stop solution?? For example would LordAmeth's azekuri be with Japanese architecture or would it be added to my currently short article about Kura (storehouse)? Maybe this question is rhetorical and I need to answer it as I re-write the sections!! Thanks again for all of your help. Kenchikuben (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A springboard, definitely. It can't cover everything,Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Burges (architect)

I would really appreciate a review of the article on William Burges. It's currently rated C and I'd very much like to move it to B or, better still, GA. Following helpful advice from Elekhh, I've sought to substantially improve the referencing and to remove the many personal opinions with which I originally littered the article. But whether I've done enough, I'm not sure. I hope it's reasonably well-written. I'm 99% certain it's factually accurate and the added references should make it verifiable, but does it still have original research? I've looked at it so many times I can hardly tell. It's pretty broad in its coverage, addressing the main points of his life and work. It's certainly stable and I think it's pretty well illustrated, for which I can take virtually no credit. And does Wikipedia recommend Burges's or Burges'?

Any suggestions most gratefully received and I promise to respond promptly - apologies, Elekhh. KJP1 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments: I had a quick look, and see a lot of progress since the last review. I would like to make following suggestions for improvement:

Improve inline citations. Always use author and date of publication for the notes, such as "Pevsner (1967)". Also consolidate citations using the format <ref name="Pevsner (1967)"> as I did here. You can further consolidate notes, by removing page numbers where not necessary. In case of direct quotations, always use the page numbers, but otherwise is sufficient to provide the book or a range of pages within the book (for instance the pages of a chapter like 239-269) which are relevant. This way it can be avoided an excessively long list of notes, and will have a better overview of the sources.

Will set to work on this rather daunting task. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improve lead per WP:LEAD. The lead should provide a summary of the article, in a number of paragraphs (maybe three). There should be a section in the lead which mentions his most important works for instance. The criticism part of the lead should aim to be neutral, for instance by quoting others than Crook (will come back to this later). Also the legacy section would deserve to be summarized in a sentence in the lead.

Had a go at expanding this to try to summarise his life, works and the article itself. Is it a bit long now? And has it shaded into unreferenced "opinion"? KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, but yes, it is too long, it should be trimmed to be be more summary style. Have a look at Charles Holden or Kenzo Tange for comparison. --Elekhh (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to reduce but retain a full summary. Think its ok now (?)

Yes, definitely much better, good work.--Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organize gallery. The gallery seems to be a nice selection of images, but it would be better to have some kind of structure to it. Could use subsections based on building types, location or based on the role Burgess had in their design, whatever you consider most appropriate. I would also suggest adding the design and completion year is the simple "(1863-4)" format to the image captions.

Had a go at this, using Mourdaunt Crooks's own "themes". But that won't mean much to the general reader, perhaps? Will sort the captions. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now better organised and dates added for the "lead" pictures.

Better organised, yes, but a bit excessive content. I think one image exemplifying one important work would be the maximum in scope. See guidelines for image galleries. If you wish to have a grand gallery, you can make one at Commons. --Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feared you'd say this. Just can't resist adding Burges pictures now I've worked out how to do it. Will take out all the non-notable ones. KJP1 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments will help. Once these points are addressed will have another look. In the meanwhile I hope other editors will also review the article. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elekhh

Many thanks, I shall get right on to these. Amplifying the lead will be relatively simple, as should organising the gallery. I can also tidy up the references but here my incompentence in wiki-editing will slow me down. But there's no rush; as Bute said "Why should I hurry over what is my chief pleasure?" Best regards KJP1 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress, slowly but surely the article is getting closer to become GA nomination worthy. --Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to thank you for your continued support. Been busy at work this week but will start on sorting the referencing this weekend. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read through. It's an interesting article, you've obviously put in a lot of work especially with the citations . I would like to make the following suggestions for improvement:

Improve the lead. I still think the lead is a bit long. It may be that you remove the direct quotations and instead just summarise the sections below. Also, I'm not sure about the use of "the greatest". I know that there is some discussion of this on the article's Talk page but with such a good article why court controversy at all by describing him as such (even with a citation)?
Reduce the number of repeat links for Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch as per WP:REPEATLINK
Castell Coch. I know the castle has its own article but I think it would be useful to expand the description of it within the "Burges and Bute" section because at the moment there is quite a lot about Cardiff.
"machines for living in.." I find this comparison problematic as it suggests (to me) that Burges' work was somehow an alternative to twentieth century modernism (although it preceded modernism by a number of decades).
Legacy. What happened to Castell Coch after Bute died? Presumably it was sold or gifted to CADW at some point?

Hope these comments help. Keep up the good work. Kenchikuben (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I firstly apologise for the delay in responding but a combination of leave and work have meant I've neglected Burges of late. Secondly, thank you so much for the time taken to review the article, for your very kind comments about it, and for your most helpful suggestions. I hope to get back to working Burges up to GA over the next month or so and shall certainly take your comments on board, which will benefit the article greatly. With many thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick House

I have substantially enlarged the Chiswick House and Gardens entry from the initial entry of one page to reflect their iconic and important status in the history of Europeon architectural and garden design. I have included many relevant photographs to illustrate the text and have included detailed footnotes and comprehensive bibliography. I have also included all the recent research and findings from scholars who have recognised the importance of Chiswick House and its architect. I feel this article warrants a much better class rating for quality and architectural importance. Please review all sections. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalrick1 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2010

It's very well done, but there are many more citations required. I don't like too many footnotes, but such statements as "...it is likely that the idea of building a Villa (house in the country) at Chiswick presented itself, yet this notion may already have been present in the mind of Lord Burlington since the time of his sojourn of Italy in 1719" needs reffing; ie:"likely" in the opinion of who? The footnotes (or endnotes as you call them) all require page numbers. I think you need to read through it and ask yourself - whose opinion am I giving and then attribute it. I'm afraid your opinion is not good enough - sorry. Also the page is a little long and laborious - very comprehensive - but laborious. Could the prose be tightened and is any of the info superfluous? I don't want to sound negative because it's really is very well done, but if you want it peer reviewed, these things have to be sorted. I will re-read it continually over the next few days and make other comments. I wonder if "Alternative interpretations for the use of the Villa would not be better hived off into another page of its own, a page on Chiswick House does not need images of monuments in St Peter's, especially when the whole thing is only speculation - it's all rambling on - interesting, but unecesary. Finally, the lead is far too short and should summarise the whole article. Giacomo Returned 08:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This great list setion can be "Important visitors to Chiswick Villa and Gardens" can be absorbed very briefly elsewhere.
Filming and photography is trivia, so can go off to a page of its own, linked from the principle page
Does the further reading section have to be quite so long - it looks to me like any book that has ever mentioned the place.
I have just made this edit [1] and moved this speculative section (which needs to be severely addressed) further down as it was breaking the flow of reality between the house and gardens. However, the page does need a winding up final paragraph. Giacomo Returned 09:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's enough for now, let me know if you agree or want to discuss these points - there's nothing that can't be debated - my opinion v yours. Then we can take another look. Giacomo Returned 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need need all these pictures of the Forum, and other places - that's the point of Wikipedia - it;s not like a standard text book - they can all be linked to from the text - they are distracting, cluttering and probably distorting the text on a small screen. Giacomo Returned 06:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second the point about citations; large sections of the article are completely unreferenced at the moment. It's an early area to focus on, and could be a quick win.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid effort, but the lead section needs to be a far longer summary - about 4-5 paragraphs summarizing the article. A lot more links and citations need adding - apart from people & places, terms like Diocletian window and egg and dart all have articles. The usual end sections are: Notes, References (the books the notes come from), Further reading. The pictures on both sides will squash the text for people with smaller screens; using mini-galleries (see Medieval art for example) is one solution. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to the first 2 sections - the rest need doing. Also some queries on the talk page. Capitalization is generally rather excessive "the Library..." , "her Bedchamber" , "sweet Chestnut" (either 2 or 0, 0 is better). I'm really not sure about all the "the Villa"-ing, & a decision is needed to use house or villa consistently, or spell out a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations. GiacomoReturned drew my attention to this article here, but I need to say up front that "I know nothing" about architecture. What I do know a little about though is writing, so my comments are focused on that aspect of the article.

It's very obvious that the author knows a great deal about this subject, but paradoxically that can be almost an impediment. Some things that are self-evident to him are required to be cited in the wikipedia world, and consequently the article is way under-cited to stand any chance at any of the review processes like GA or FA. That doesn't make the article "bad" in any way though, obviously. I tend to avoid articles on subjects that I have any great knowledge for exactly that reason. Bizarre I know.
There are way too many images. Most should be moved over to Commons and a link provided.
There's a rather strange use of quotation marks that I can't quite understand. For instance, "These higher 'Chivalric and Historic' orders met in 'encampments' rather than lodges and were predominately Christian in their outlook and composition." If "Chivalric and Historic" and "encampments" are actual quotations, then who is being quoted? What meaning is the punctuation meant to convey?
"Four depictions of The Green Man, pagan god of the oak and symbol of rebirth and resurrection, can be viewed carved into the marble fireplaces." Is that really a link to the right Green Man?
The lead is of course far too short, as others have said.
I'm really unhappy with the References section mixing up notes and citations.
The sheer scale of the Further reading section raises the obvious question; why were so many of these sources ignored in the construction of this article?

Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalrick, could you rewrite this phrase ".......a large table by William Kent which contained many designs by architects such as Andrea Palladio, Inigo Jones, John Webb and Vincenzo Scamozzi, which were ready for inspection." I'm not sure what you are saying there. I am also just wondering if the page does not contain a little too much emphasis on the Freemasony and Jacobite theories, by all means mention them (fully referenced), but I can't help getting the feeling that they are being hammered home a little too heavily. Giacomo Returned 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and re-read the page, I think this section "Alternative interpretations for the use of the Villa" needs be taken away to a page of its own (and linked in the "see also" section) and take all the Masonic and Jacobite theories with it. They are not convincing me at all and furthermore they are detracting from the architectural and factual history of the house - as one who has studied Palladio in depth and 17th and 18th century social history, I could drive a coach and horses through some of the assertions supporting theories there, so if I can, I know some of our other editors will too - this is an encyclopedia not a debating chamber. I strongly doubt the page can get through FAC with all of that there - it's all just too theoretical and tenuous to be encyclopedic. sorry. Giacomo Returned 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree there. It is mostly at the end of a long article, and while controversial, is not the usual fringe stuff, but comes from a scholarly background. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero

Since I only feel qualified to look over sourcing and files, that is all I have done. I looked quickly over the sourcing and it all looks great. The quotes make fact checking easy for other reviews and such. What style of sourcing in particular are you using? As for files, the article looks a bit cluttered right now with so many images. I am not sure how much this is going be expanded but, removing a few may improve readability. ~~After lab tomorrow, I will look over all the images for the copyright formalities.~~ I hope this helps. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few file pages that you may run into a issue with:

The biggest thing is that they list the author as you. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Lead needs considerable expansion to effectively summarixe the article
Relationship between Villa and Gardens, Upper Tribune (or Domed Hall), Green Velvet Room, Lady Burlington's Bedchamber and Closet, Lower Tribune, Lower Link, Later developments.., Important visitors... sections are completely unreferenced.
Most mid sections need ref improving.
A lot of work needs to be written about the cultural heritage and listed building developments in the 20th century in the bottom section. Sources seem to reveal it has been subject to archaeological digs which aren't mentioned. This is covered in just a few lines, it needs some solid paragraphs so it seems balanced and infitting with the rest of the articles..
Any objections to a pin map in infobox? I can request a quality one of the actual borough with a london window locator which would look decent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to go through this and add citation needed tags on sentences and pargraphs which require sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I am sure Chivalrick1 (who does not seem to be here very much) would be delighted for you (with your experience) to steer his ship through FAC and allow it to obtain the high rating he desires and the page deserves. Giacomo Returned 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GA would clearly be possible right now, it has FA potential eventually, but needs a LOT of work. Lets try to get it to GA first then. I just made a map showing surroundings but it could use a Greater London locator in the infobox given that at the moment no borough locator exists. I'm not sure though UK property infobox has that option. Any objections to swapping it with Template:Infobox building, no parameters would be lost as far as I'm aware.. London locator pin features on File:Greater London UK location map 2.svg. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind what you do. I have only been one of several copyeditors over the last few days responding to the request for peer review. You do whatever you think best. Someone should, I suppose, find out if Chivalrick1 is happy with things so far, I have been rather drastic in my removal of images and text unconnected directly to the page. Giacomo Returned 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I just saw the references. Not good. Its barely got any actual reference which is verifiable and no page numbers from the books or papers.. Its mostly long notes which are not actual references... The information of course if from any book or magazine given in the bibliography needs the exact page numbers and authors in the notes/references, just listing them isn't adequate of course.... What I can do is add citation tags to all those which needs it and in the coming days try to find as many verifiable sources as possible but the principal author will need to replace/modify the notes with proper sources and will require a lot of effort in scouting for sources... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think best..... Giacomo Returned 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. When I saw the long notes I thought they were quotations from the source used. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a complete overhaul in the next few days. I've only reached around 1800 in the history at the moment, more to add form several sources I found. You can kind of see where its headed with structure and sourcing and what I've edited/written so far. I'll replace those notes which proper sources soon enough. No major rush though, I'll work on this gradually over the next month, it doe shave potential to be at least GA and the amount of potential sources is astounding, which means even more so that time must be taken with research to ensure it is really comprehensive..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI he replied here about why he has been away. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chivalrick1

Thanks guys are looking at this and making edits. I will find the exact references needed over the next few days. I have all the books on the bibliography either in my library at home or at work (Chiswick House). But please keep me in the loop as I spent a vast amount of time expanding this entry and taking photographs to make it a worthy entry for this iconic piece of architecture Chivalrick1 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalrick1 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Strutt

Per the comments on the discussion page I would like some feedback as a first time contributor and am curious if I should be migrating this article to a specific template. FairiequeenArch (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi there. Although it's clearly an article on an important Canadian architect, I feel it's perhaps trying a bit too hard to make him sound important, coming across a bit like a "puff piece" at times. For example, is "In all his work, Mr. Strutt explored the beauty of geometry, structure and form in nature" really neccesary? Whose opinion is that? If it's a quote from somewhere, then that's fine, but at the moment it's not attributed. After all, modern architecture is often controversial - have any of his designs been criticised?

The same could be said for "For fifty-five years Strutt contributed prolificly to the field of Modern Canadian Architecture." That's already made clear by the list of his projects.

Other recommendations would be to get rid of the capitals in the list of projects. Obviously, this has been copied from somewhere else, but needs to look like a standard Wikipedia list (something like Ernő Goldfinger, for example). It would also be good to have some images of his work, so a few pictures of his public buildings would fit the bill there.

The other major problem is that it's almost entirely unreferenced. Referencing is especially important for a biographical article. As he died recently, I would imagine there might be some obituaries around that would corroborate some of the details in the main body text. Hope that's some help. Bob talk 10:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem is that quite a bit is almost copied verbatim from [2], which is presumably copyrighted material. It will need to be revised into your own words here. [3] and [4] might be good references for citing some of the material. Bob talk 10:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great feedback Bob...as I mention on the subject article talk page "I claim Novice status". I hope to finalize your suggestions soon, and as can be clearly seen from how long it took me to get back to you I have had a series of distractions of late that have just recently been -and some, in the near future will be- resolved.

I am in complete agreement with your first comment and I even went into edit mode on the article to change the term "beauty" to "concepts"...however upon doing so I realized that sentence is a direct quote (referenced with a small footnote) to the article (referenced in the footnote)...likely it should be done another way? (Point the direction and it will be done!)

I have, as you suggested, replaced the all 'upper case' list of Works with 'title case' and will refer to the page you suggested for a final -well likely not final- corrective formatting/edit. I have plans to add at least one image per building type -and several in some cases.

I would also like to add a referenced list of published articles about him and even a list of published articles he wrote...there is actually quite a few in each category (and yes only a couple by yours truely- although in my non-wikipedian persona I am often referenced as the defacto 'Strutt' expert, my knowledge of the man and his works is a steadily growing -and currently convoluted- mass of information).

I really appreciate your feedback, especially as it is both constructive and comes complete with suggested solutions. Thanks again.FairiequeenArch (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]