Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/archive/Winter 2006

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture‎ | Peer review‎ | archive

Joseph F. Glidden House edit

Looking for comments and/or edits to bring this article up to good article status.A mcmurray 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated lazy nitpicker review - I'll try and comment on content (and Japanese castles) at the weekend. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the talk page.A mcmurray 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you didn't think I was ignoring your suggestions, I incorporated them the other day, I just sometimes forget to respond here is all.A mcmurray 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if anyone had anything to add, I expanded the article quite a bit and would like to archive it and submit it for GA if no one had anything else that might help.A mcmurray 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Architecture (Latter-day Saints) edit

As one who is quite familiar with the subject, I would like those who have less of an understanding of the structural use and design of LDS temples to give a review of what might be unclear, lacking or over emphasized. Bytebear 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DVD R W

Some comments and recommendations from me:

  • For some reason I don't like titles with brackets, maybe consider renaming it "Latter-day Saints Temple Architecture".
  • Don't overlink, just use [[]] around the first instance of a page you want to link to, not every time it is mentioned.
  • Find material from sources that are not LDS as such. Meaning - find references to these buildings in the press, and in architectural monographs, journals, magazines, or websites; then include some of this info in the article.
  • Merge or expand short paragraphs, and merge or remove a few sections to reduce the length of the table of contents. You probably shouldn't start with a choppy lead with two one-line sentences.
  • Write the sections that are lists in prose form.
  • After looking around a little, this article might be a content fork of Temple (Latter Day Saints).

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Mcginnly
  • I found the introduction rather confusing and non-standard from a WP:LEAD standpoint. To fix it, I'd go with DVD's renaming suggestion, but rename the article to "Temple architecture of the Latter-day Saints". The article can then start
The Temple architecture of the Latter-day Saints has its roots in the 19th century after the movements founder Joseph Smith, Jr., reported receiving a revelation that called upon church members to restore the practice of temple worship.
I'd suggest some of the information currently in the lead, the quotation etc. be moved into a brief history paragraph about the origins of the movement and the call to build temples. The lead can then be left to do it's job and summarise the article.
  • The prose needs looking at - as an example:-
Following the completion of the Salt Lake Temple, the church took a break from temple building. It would be two decades before another temple would be announced. That announcement came as the Cardston Alberta Temple (6) on June 27, 1913. This temple was different than previous temples. It was the first temple design to be put out to bid to prominent architects. It was also the first temple to be designed without a priesthood assembly hall beginning a transition away from multi-purpose temples.
Can you find a synonym for temple? I know it's the articles subject, but there's an enormous repetition of the word - perhaps building might be used. Naturally if the building is called Cardston Alberta Temple then you're stuck with it, but I'd prune the usage a bit if I could.
  • The article uses church to mean a body of people and temple to signify the building, there's some initial confusion caused by this because of the double meaning of church. Perhaps either use a different word or clarify what the article is doing fairly early on. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding DVD's comments about referencing, it might be an idea to include some information from the architectural press regarding the architecture of the LDS - how is it regarded architecturally? Has it influenced any other building types? Are the external styles of the buildings reflective of non-LDS ecclesiastical architecture of their times or are they something different. The plan forms are interesting - how do they differ from contemporaneous church/cathedral plans? etc.etc.
  • Reading the entry at Mormon I understand the term is no longer perjorative. As a UK resident, I'm more familiar with the term Mormon than a member of the church of latter-day saints. I'd suggest Mormon is put into the lead fairly early on so the reader gets a quick grasp on what the article is about.
  • The Logan Utah Temple (2) was the first temple to feature progressive-style ordinance rooms for presentation of the endowment ceremony

The phrase progressive-style recurs quite a bit - I don't know what it is or what it's characteristics are. Also the endowment ceremony is a mystery to me.

  • I missed the link in the lead to Temple (Latter Day Saints) because my assumption was that it linked to just Temple.
  • I tweaked the image and TOC a little - I couldn't read the text on the image - please revert if it's not to your taste.

Kind regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreview by Andyz Script The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Norway edit

This was put up as a Featured Article candidate, was turned down with a number of specific suggestion improvements, all of which have been met. Would like further feedback from the community to bring it to a point where it can once more be successfully nominated. --Leifern 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nice images and the general scope of the article seems ok. The english needs a major overhaul though.
  • The inline citations need tidying up per WP:MOS - basically the citations should come after the paragraph's full stop with no space between it and the full stop. ie
"evidence indicates that tents in use at about 6500 BCE were of similar design to those still in use by the Sami nomads [4]"
becomes
"evidence indicates that tents in use at about 6500 BCE were of similar design to those still in use by the Sami nomads."[4]
"There are few examples of Renaissance architecture in Norway, the most prominent being the Rosenkrantz Tower in Bergen, Barony Rosendal in Hardanger, and the contemporary Austråt manor near Trondheim, and parts of Akershus Fortress[15][16]."
becomes
"There are few examples of Renaissance architecture in Norway, the most prominent being the Rosenkrantz Tower in Bergen, Barony Rosendal in Hardanger, and the contemporary Austråt manor near Trondheim, and parts of Akershus Fortress."[15][16] etc.
  • The FAC commenters made recommendations to avoid the use of short choppy writing style and single sentence paragraphs. There's still quite a lot of both in the article.
  • "Many of the fortifications at border areas and ports were modernized in line with Baroque military practice.
Although most residences were built according to local vernacular traditions, some manors (such as Austråt and Rosendal) show influence from Baroque architecture. The city of Christiania (Oslo) was the only one in which wooden buildings were not allowed, and a number of large town houses modeled after Continental building types were constructed. Some large churches were constructed with brick walls, notably in Bergen, Christiania, Røros[18] and Kongsberg[19] ."
There's quite a bit of this sort of thing - no citation for "baroque military practice" - and no explanation of what it might be, what characteristics did the practice have, what was its purpose and defining features? 'Continental' doesn't need a capital letter. "The city of Christiania (Oslo) was the only one......." would be better written as "Christiania (now Oslo) was the only city in which timber buildings were prohibited, and a number of large townhouses, modeled in a continental style, were constructed." - You still need to describe what that style might be though.
The article's pretty good on the whole but needs some real polish before submitting to FAC again.
  • You should add the {{no icon}} (in Norwegian) before all the references in norwegian and {{en icon}} (in English) before all the english ones.
  • A discussion of any influence upon and from the Architecture of Sweden would probably be appropriate.

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - feedback much appreciated. --Leifern 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious architecture edit

I have significantly expanded the article on religious architecture, largely borrowing from other articles in a survey of the field style. Comments and suggestions are welcome as are collaborators and contributions. I know we are missing some major periods as well as the architecture of some major religious movements. However, it is probably not helpful to the article to cover absolutely everything. I am eager to know where you see major oversights or helpful additions. Is there enough balance between Western (Christian) periods and Eastern (non-Christian) topics. I am not looking for a theological or proportional answer to that question, but rather once that is informed by the history of World architecture. Thoughts?

Also, is it enough to link to other articles in WP that constitute the source from which the copy has been distilled, or must references be cited in each article independently? Opinions? Thanks. Glenn4pr 06:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think each article needs to be referenced independantly unfortunately.
  2. This article makes a better fist at the history of architecture than the actual History of architecture article - but there in lies a gripe - is this the history of architecture under a different name - I'm not sure what your criteria for inclusion is?
  3. The section on modern and postmodern architecture is a bit US centric in my opinion - whilst the cadet chapel is a really striking building, I've never come across it before, which makes me think its place in architectural development may be tertiary; whilst major works such as Notre Dame du Haut get no mention. The Church of the Light might be a good one for a Japanese example.It might be better to subdivide the modern architecture section - it's been going for nearly 100 years now so there's plenty of hues and shades - see Josef Franke's expressionist churches for example - or the Art Deco churches [1] or Coventry Cathedral or Oscar Niemeyer's cathedral in Brazil.......
  4. The problem seems to me that almost any architectural style or period has been employed in the construction of religious architecture. Perhaps it might be better to merge it with history of architecture (no mean feat - perhaps an article improvement of the month candidate?)

Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about merging this into history of architecture. I think that article should stay as secular as possible, but agree it needs some help. I would like to see here a section or some discussion of buildings from the old testament, maybe in the ancient architecture section, or in its own. There are some articles on these around. Yes, it needs more coverage of buildings from Judaism. Synagogue architecture would be a good place to start. Glenn4pr, you can also submit this to WP:PR for more eyes than just ours. DVD+ R/W 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, synagogue looks better than synagogue architecture - though I get the gist of it, the latter looks kind of forky. Some other buildings to discuss: Western Wall, Dome of the Rock, Solomon's Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple, Tabernacle, Sukkot, and more. Best, DVD+ R/W 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if were intent on not merging ......... we might think about adding Zoroastrianism to the faiths - A really old religion. Fire temples are notable as are the rock funery osiaries (I'll check the spelling but if memory serves the old death rituals used to be that bodies were placed on towers to be later devoured by vultures and then the bones were tossed into the tower). --Mcginnly | Natter 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the eastern orthodox should get a mention particularly Onion domes and the russian timber church tradition (pictured)
 
24-domed Intercession church on the Vytegra River was built in wood in 1708 and burnt down to the ground by accident in 1963. It has not been restored so far.
Other notables are the Aztec and Inca temples (Machu Pichu Mesoamerican pyramids Maya architectureetc. How about precolumbian native american architecture? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't claim to know much about it but the Indus Valley Civilization was incredibly precocious in terms of its development in world history - first town planning, sanitation etc. presumably religious architecture too. Also what about Stonehenge and the celtic/beaker monuments? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the topic is considered on a solely historic ground (with even a strong emphasis on western architecture starting from classical), with minimal considerations of the specifics of different religions. My original stub was rather a collection of religious-specific links. I think the article needs to refocus on the specific requirement of these buildings, with style peculiarities kept secondary. Of course, I can still never give enough credit to those who expanded it into the current and Church architecture (incidentally, the latter contains a good section on Orthodox churches) articles. Circeus 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the headings are a bit confusing. Is the article structured by chronology? historical relivance? by religion? by architectural style? I would put a heading Christianity, and then do the styles under that, ordered by chronology. I agree with Circeus that, although style should be noted, I think functional significance should first separate the different headings. Bytebear 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the way the article is arranged, even though it means that Islamic architecture is sandwiched between two Christian styles. As is stated in the article, Byzantine architecture influence Islamic architecture. The first sentence of the article is a bother. "Religious architecture is concerned with the design and construction of places of worship." Architects are concerned with the design and construction. The article concerns matters of design and construction. But the architecture itself isn't in the least concerned! On the other hand, if you are referring to architecture as a process, rather than as a conglomeration of buildings, then you can say "Religious architecture is the design and construction of places of worship." But the "concern" has gotta go. Also, in the paragraph Spiritual aspects of religious architecture the word "return" is used twice. I'm not comprehending the significance, and the second use is particularly confusing. I know this is nit-picking, but the concepts described seem to be straightforward except for the use of that word.

--Amandajm 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese castle edit

I have just finished a significant expansion and renovation of this article which I created in May 2005. I would really like to be able to hold this up as an example of my best work, since it is (a) largely my own work, with, for the most part only images and some minor stylistic/grammatical changes made by other editors, (b) a broad, important, and central topic, (c) one that is particularly non-esoteric and of general interest. Any suggestions anyone can make to improving this article would be most appreciated.

I've tried not to go overboard on detail, as it really doesn't need to describe every single important development in architecture, nor every military tactical/strategic/technological advancement - it's meant to be a thorough overview, and further details can be explained in separate articles (e.g. I may be creating at some point in the near future separate articles on different styles of Japanese roofing).

  1. Are there sentences that are awkward or hard to understand?
  2. Are there points that are superfluous or redundant?
  3. Points that are missing?
  4. How does the thing flow overall? - this is a problem I always have trouble with in my actual academic papers: paragraphs that don't flow nicely into one another thematically.

Thanks, all. LordAmeth 11:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic review - some pointers for compliance with WP:MOS and other policies - I'll comment on the content later. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 11:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Peer_review/archive/Winter_2006&oldid=145869647"