Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Matthew Brettingham/Archive1

Matthew Brettingham edit

Article is still a featured article

Reads like an essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There could be improvements, but I supported it then and support it still. Certain sections make it appear more essay-like, I agree; however, it's still an FA, IMO. Oppose. Geogre 13:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems fine to me. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK I wrote it, but is remains basically unchanged since it was unanimously voted to FA status in January Giano | talk 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured, it doesn't read like an essay to me. Perhaps Ta Bu Shi would specify wherein he sees the essay-like qualities, or even better, edit them away himself? Considering the hard-nosed editors who voted to support this article in January—Geogre, Taxman, Filiocht, ALoan—it's a little hard to believe that there's what anybody would consider egregious or pervasive essay-likeness in it, although of course it's a quality that's determined by personal taste. It's not measurable in the way "no references" or "not comprehensive" are. For myself, I like a discernible individual voice, even in an encyclopedic article, I've always liked Giano's stuff, and I like this one. (Disclosure: I nominated it for FAC in January.) That said, I always rather did wonder how long people were going to stand for the sentence in the Lead section that compares Brettingham vs. Robert Adam to Salieri vs. Mozart. There, I've removed it; now the article definitely doesn't read like an essay, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had the time, I would. I'm not saying it's not a good article, it is. It just, to my mind, reads like an essay. The sole reasoning behind this is the conclusion, which seems, to my mind, to be pushing a POV. If that could be improved I would definitely withdraw the FA. I would like to note that I am not attacking Giano. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, there is a section that says to refer to Talk:Matthew Brettingham. In what way is this necessary or relevant to an FA? Talk pages must be seperated from articles themselves and should not be the main repository of info that is relevant to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that you mention it, I do see some essay like writing in it, but Giano (the author) was quite confident everything was well supported by the sources he had. If you can point out specific writing that needs fixing, that would be a lot more helpful. Overall I still feel it is of featured quality. - Taxman ^Talk 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The conclusion is the big thing. I feel that should be rewritten. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only obvious essay-like element I can see is the title of the last section, "Conclusion", but this could be renamed: would "Legacy" fit? The link to the discussion of his input at Holkham Hall on the talk page could also be dealt with slightly more elegantly (for example, but explaining the issue in the text). But otherwise, I still think this is a Giano gem. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I would agree with that, but the one that bothers me the most is "However, the interior design of Norfolk House was to define the London town house for the next century...". According to whom? Also "as happened so often in Brettingham's career, to develop this design concept further and be credited with the success." How do we know Adams didn't simply offer more of the innovation? And "This commission might have been the ultimate accolade Brettingham was seeking." Is speculation if not attributed. It's a lot of phrases and conjecture like that that I see now that it's been pointed out. I thought it would be a lot more helpful to be specific than to just complain. While the article won't likely be removed, it would still be good to improve these issues. - Taxman ^Talk 03:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will have to dig the reference books out again to check what fact came from where, I am away from later today for a few days or so, it will have to be later rather than sooner. Perhaps the nominator of this page's place here would like to carry out some improvements, or unlike FA itself, is the nominator's place in this hall of shame merely to be executioner. Either way he seems at present to be noticeable only for his absence. Perhaps now Taxman has given him some pointers he may show up. Giano | talk 06:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I've only dotted an i or two, myself. It does read like an essay: a concise encyclopedia essay sketching the career of an architect, without missing any essential commissions and without intruding any assessments that aren't widely shared mainstream opinions. Very well balanced, referenced and an example of top-notch Wikipedia work. Perhaps "essay" is a codeword for something. --Wetman 09:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Wouldn't it have been better if TBSDY had mentioned what was wrong on the Talk page first? Ahem =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Probably. Now that I have some time to review this, it was most likely a mistake to list this on FARC and as you suggest, probably should have raised my concerns on the talk page. I certainly never did it to attack anyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]