Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Benjamin Mountfort/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Benjamin Mountfort
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 kept by User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [1].

Benjamin Mountfort edit

Review commentary edit

The following notifications have been left: Bishonen, Giano, WP England, WP New Zealand, WP Architecture, Wp Bio --Falcorian (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was approved to FA in 2005, when standards were much lower, and it shows. It currently has one inline citation which makes verification of facts by readers nearly impossible. --Falcorian (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it when the article was assessed in 2006, the review stated "needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD". --Falcorian (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'll add a note up top. --Falcorian (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • after a quick review the only issues really seem to be inline citations. I don't have access to the referenced books, so can't do the ref formating. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my area of expertise, but let me know if there are specific items you want me to check out in New Zealand libraries. However, I'm in Auckland, some of the material may only be available in Christchurch, so you might need to recruit some help from down there. User:Alan Liefting and User:Evil Monkey may be able to help with such materials.-gadfium 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get a copy of A Dream of Spires tomorrow. I can look at The Gothic Beauties (but not the first edition of 1929, only the 1941, 1950 or 1963 editions) but it isn't available for loan, so I'll need specific details on what needs to be looked up.-gadfium 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You three have just nearly restored my faith in wikipedia - what! 3 editors all working out where to get the books and who may help! fantastic stuff, more power to your elbow :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a biography in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography - I'm not sure how much that'll help. Snippets of his work are also available in Sir Banister Fletcher's a History of Architecture. I'll begin adding citations from the former right away, if no one minds. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I've added comments in spots in the text where the citation I have doesn't discuss the fact or disputes the fact. It would be appreciated if others could verify or debunk the statements. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now got A Dream of Spires, and I'll see what I can add to the article with it tomorrow.-gadfium 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good; I can't seem to find anything except the two I mentioned and the Christchurch reference already provided. The DZNB reference contradicts what the article says in several places, so I'll be needing a third source to determine which version of the events is true. Banister Fletcher doesn't provide much, I'm afraid. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I'm having trouble with the following statement: "...[The Pilgrims] have their names engraved on marble plaques in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, in front of the cathedral that Mountfort helped to design." I've looked everywhere, and I can see nothing that even vaguely alludes to this. Is it in The Dream of Spires? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, as far as I can see it isn't in Dream of Spires (but I'd have to read every word and every footnote to be absolutely sure), however I found a Christchurch City Council page about all the plaques in the city, and from there a page about this one.[2]-gadfium 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've hit upon a goldmine: [3] - this will easily reference much of the article, I suspect, though scrolling through it and waiting for it to download is incredibly irritating. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main contributor has requested the removal of date-autoformatting. I've obliged. (It's now optional.) Tony (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg says it depicts St. Patrick's Catholic Church. If so, why is it called Augustine's and why does it look totally different from the 1919 picture of St. Patrick's by F. G. Radcliffe in the collection of the Alexander Turnbull Library (Reference number: 1/2-006870-G)? DrKay (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The church pictured is clearly St Augustine's, designed by Mountfort and pictured in "A Dream of Spires", p 191, although it has had additional structures added since the 1872 photo shown there. I think the description of it as St Patrick's is erroneous; that appears to be a different church, although I cannot find the image you refer to in ATL - they don't appear to make searching by ref no easy.-gadfium 10:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have provided a link. The correct source and author information should be added to Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg and Image:Christchurch Cathedral (1).jpg. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I'm still sourcing this, though I've slacked off a bit recently. I think I can finish the entire article before too long. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added a couple of inline cites. On another note, I believe the lead/lede is fine as is. WP:LEAD is a guideline, not an iron cast, and I think this lead does an admirable job of succinctly summarising the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold — I agree with Nouser (said Polyphemus...). They have made signifigant improvements since my nomination for review, and while I don't believe it would as of yet survive FAR, I do think they will be able to bring it up to a level where it will if given more time. --Falcorian (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Gadfium - The following paragraph:

This high-profile commission may seem surprising, bearing in mind Mountfort's history of design in New Zealand. However, the smaller buildings he and Luck had erected the previous year had impressed the city administrators and there was a dearth of available architects. The resultant acclaim of the building's architecture marked the beginning of Mountfort's successful career.

  • is giving me no end of trouble. Is there anything in The Dream of Spires to source this? I'll simply move on for now, though. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see anything in DoS. I can give the "smaller buildings he constructed the previous year", but no information about why he was selected by the city administrators. I'll take a look at The Gothic Beauties and History of the Canterbury Provincial Buildings in the next day or two.-gadfium 06:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in The Gothic Beauties either. I looked at the 3rd edition, 1950. It's a pamphlet of about 60 pages, with detailed descriptions of the architecture but only a brief overview of the history, and a few pages about Mountfort which takes an entirely uncritical approach to his life. I think it is unlikely that the 1st edition, which I don't have access to, would have contained material to support this paragraph.-gadfium 02:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could simply remove the paragraph if nothing can be found, since it's not all that important, but I'd really rather not; it adds to the overall style of the article that's typical of Giano's writing. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Per the initial comment by Falcorian (talk · contribs), the article still contains a significant amount of material lacking in-line citations, and therefore it is difficult to determine if there are portions of the article that may be wholly unsourced. In any event, it will be better for the project if the article were to go through WP:FAC at a later point in time - agree with Falcorian (talk · contribs) that it is apparent from this article that it was promoted when FA standards were lower. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, wait! - Active progress is being made on the article, as noted above. Would reviewers please hold off comments relating to the sourcing until the job is finished? Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry. We'll wait. Marskell (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking out my comment pending further input from Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) - however I still think that this article would have severe troubles in an attempt to pass through the WP:FAC process at current WP:FA standards, and most likely trouble at WP:GAC as well. It should not remain a WP:FA unless significant further work is done on the issues originally brought up by Falcorian (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Marskell. Cirt, I'm aware of that, thank you. Do you have any specific concerns other than the sourcing? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not at the moment, nope - just the major sourcing issues for the most part, though will revisit after you've finished your active progress on the article. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to update progress: Almost finished with fourth section; will start on penultimate section soon. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished the fourth section, beginning the penultimate. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very quick flyover, I see the WP:LEAD may need expansion, and there are spaced emdashes. I'll look more closely after the citation work is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks, hadn't noticed the spaced em dashes. All fixed now. As mentioned above, I think the lead is fine as is, but if most disagree with me, I'll rewrite it or add a second paragraph. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find much on the design on Canterbury College; could you help me out there, Gadfium? I'd assume it would be in one of the books. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dream of Spires discusses Canterbury College in detail - more than 10 pages are devoted to it. The discussion does not make any comparisons to the Château de Blois, or to Our Lady of Mercy in Birmingham. Oxford and Cambridge Universities are mentioned in passing, but not in a way that supports the current text in the article. There are a number of mentions of Pugin, but the gist is that Mountfort was developing his own style rather than adhering to elements that Pugin and others considered indispensable (in particular in relation to the pointed arch). I don't think I can help on this one.-gadfium 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll simply skip that for now, then. If nothing comes up by the time I finish sourcing the rest of the article, would you please simply replace the current text with a summary of the Dream of Spires information? Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg, the lych gate was not added until in 1902, after Mountfort's death. The belltower was added in 1903. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gadfium kindly emailed OCR-converted scans of the pages in Dream of Spires relevant to Canterbury College to me, but I'm saving rewriting that bit to the end. I should start making faster progress on the "Provincial Architect" section now, though, because I've gotten past a rather difficult bit. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nearly done; I only need to source the short last section and rewrite paragraphs about two of the buildings. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep - Done with sourcing and other things. I may have missed things or been careless; please point anything like that out. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better - Not sure this would fly through WP:FAC, but it is much better. I'll defer to consensus as far as what to do with the article itself, but excellent work so far as far as improving references. The WP:LEAD still appears a bit short, and I'm not a fan of using italics to highlight quotes. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I expressed my opinion on the lead above. I changed the quote to a blockquote; I forgot about the MOS-quote thing. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of buildings" needs citation cleanup. Pls review WP:MOS#Ellipses (spaces) and WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation). The citations use unlinked ISO dates; this may have changed recently, but I don't believe unlinked ISOs are used or preferred anywhere on Wiki. The way to make an unlinked date with the cite xxx templates is to use the parameters accessmonthday (or accessdaymonth) and accessyear separately. Inconsistent use of p. vs. p (no period) in citations. Choose one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the ellipsis and cleaned up the image caption punctuation. Also converted all unlinked ISO dates in references to dmy format for consistency within the article, cleaned up page number formatting, and replaced some page range hyphens with dashes. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, about "List of buildings" - They're not citations (I hardly think a list of buildings an architect designed needs to be cited); they're links to photos. Giano added them originally, I think, and I just reformatted them. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep featured now that inline referencing is complete. I don't believe the lede needs to be expanded.-gadfium 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Review edit

As the person who brought the article to FAR, here are my thoughts on Nouser's fixes:

  1. Sourcing looks much better, this was my primary concern can I believe it has been properly dealt with. A few that might be needed though are:
  • "Mountfort's skill as an architect lay in adapting these flamboyant styles to suit the limited materials available in New Zealand."
Cited. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy looks like a few more cites are in order.
For example, for this "Christchurch and its surrounding areas are unique in New Zealand for their particular style of Gothic architecture, something that can be directly attributed to Benjamin Mountfort."
That whole passage is cited to the ref following it. You can see proof that it cites this particular passage here in case you're doubtful. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to put references at the end of sentences instead of paragraphs, even if that means repeating a few (dozen) times. ;) However, that's not a standard convention so yours if fine. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Prose seems like it could use a little work, for example:
  • "This was an enormous blow to his reputation;" and "Whatever the cause, the result was a crushing blow to his reputation." within a paragraph of each other, and referring to the same event. Seems like needless duplication.
In fact, I think the "This was an..." sentence should probably be split and expanded. Something like: "Due to his previous failures in architecture, Mountfort looked for work in other professions. He worked as a etc. etc."
Changed to something similar to your suggestion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was instrumental in shaping the city of Christchurch." in the lead. While proper English and all that, does seem like it's lacking something. Maybe "He was instrumental in shaping..." maybe something like "physical layout of" or "architectural style of".
  • Well, it's not just that; he was instrumental in shaping the identity of the city. That's a terrible explanation; I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to put it. The sentence is correct as it is, I believe. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could still use some clarification. "Shaping the city" isn't really clear (although certainly correct linguistically). I guess what I'm saying is it makes me ask "How did he shape it? In what manner?", and while this is explained in the article, in the lead I think a summary should be provided. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a word of explanation. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1850 New Zealand was a new country." What is meant by "new country", newly discovered, newly incorporated, something else? Maybe a few more words to clarify.
  • I'm not sure what you mean - the political state/entity known as "New Zealand" had just been officially created; I'm not sure how it could be interpreted otherwise. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1850 New Zealand was a new country. The British government actively encouraged emigration to the colonies, and Mountfort arrived in Canterbury full of ambition and drive to begin designing in the new colony." I guess I'm saying I think it would read better as something like: "Mountfort arrived in Canterbury in 1850 as one of a wave of settlers encouraged to immigrate to the new state by the British Government".
Changed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not yet it looks like, I'll just assume I checked too soon. ;) I'll look back later. --Falcorian (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I clicked on "save", then left to do something - not noticing the session-expired notice. Heh. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christchurch, which was given city status in July 1856 and was the administrative capital of the province of Canterbury, was heavily developed during this period. The rapid development in the new city created a large scope for Mountfort and his new partner." I think this could use some rewording. Also the "...during this period" is unclear as to exactly what period. I think it should go something like: "Christchurch was under heavy development at the time as it had just been granted city status and was the new administrative capital of the province of Canterbury. This provided Mountford (scope, opportunity, etc.)..." Although I'm not sure scope is the best word, something more descriptive would be good.
Great. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with "Carpenter was,..." and ending with "...a breed to be despised." might be wandering a little off topic. While I agree the movement needs to be discussed, the parts about "Such theory was not confined to architects..." and Ezra Pound seem to be misplaced in this article. But I'll let others weight in, maybe I'm crazy. ;)
  • Hm, I like the cultural references, actually, and as this is a fairly short article, I think it can accommodate it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's an style opinion issue, so I don't think it's really relevant to FAR on second thought. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also designed the font,..." This is my ignorance in ecclesiastical architecture showing, but is font... font? If so, maybe a link for people like me, and an expansion as to were it is used.
  • Font in this context means baptismal font (here's a lovely photo of the particular font discussed in the article); I linked it.
Now I know! --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Provincial Architect seems like it needs subsections. Some paragraphs have two topics (the cathedral and Canterbury Association of Architects and other architecture has all be slammed into one) and the section is a little unclear as to what the theme is. I think some breaking it up with headings and maybe some reordering could help.
  • The scope is, I think, Mountfort's career while at the post of Provincial Architect, which is essentially the entire latter part of his career; the title is fine. I rearranged a few paragraphs, though I can't find any places where subheadings would be useful or correct. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rearranging looks fine for my tastes. --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how correct it is to write a comment like "Evaluating Mountfort's works today, one has to avoid judging them against a background of similar designs in Europe." in the article.
  • I think sourced critical commentary on critical commentary can be justified if it's backed up by facts. It also adds a certain aesthetic element to the prose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourced critical commentary on critical commentary"? I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you mean that's from the same source as the last sentence is cited from (that is, it's another paragraph vs. sentence sourcing thing)? --Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have no problem then. --Falcorian (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave issues of Lead, and formating, and nit picking like that to others. --Falcorian (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all points have been addressed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir. Very well done if I may say so, you've really impressed me with your willingness to do the dirty work (finding sources) for this. I don't have enough experience to say whether the article now lives up to the criteria as established by the community, but it lives up to my standards. Best of luck! --Falcorian (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, but three people have voiced their opinion so far, one (Sandy) hasn't voiced an opinion, and two (you and Cirt) have decided to defer to the community/consensus. If everyone defers to consensus, then there's no consensus to defer to! Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well unfortunately, this is only my second dealing with FA (of anysort, FAR or otherwise) at all, my first was another article that had no sources, and no one ever improved when brought to FAR. :-/ --Falcorian (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think you should actually source the list of buildings and properly format what links are there. Had been meaning to drop by and tell you. Marskell (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It could be extended as well. There's a list of his buildings as an appendix to A Dream of Spires, unfortunately I had to return it to the library. I'll get it out again later today unless someone knows of an authoritative online list.-gadfium 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, gadfium. I reformatted the links, removing most of them - the ones that weren't photos. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything online. There's this but it actually lists fewer buildings than our article does. Searches seem to point back to the Spires book. Marskell (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dream of Spires lists about 120 buildings he constructed or significantly altered. I'm not competent to decide which of these are the most significant. Shall I add them all, and perhaps others can then prune the list, or shall I forward the list to Nousernamesleft?-gadfium 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the list to Nousernamesleft.-gadfium 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded, asking whether it's necessary to include all the buildings, or just a select list of important ones. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply changed the name of the section to "Selected buildings." If we want a full list, I'd suggest a seperate article. Nouser, if you are comfortable this list is representative, source it to the full list in Spires and I'll close the review. Marskell (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:01, 28 September 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/Benjamin_Mountfort/archive1&oldid=1078810053"