Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Charles Holden/archive2

Lead comments from Cryptic C62

• "Holden's early buildings were influenced by the Arts and Crafts Movement, but for most of his career he championed an unadorned style based on simplified forms and massing that was free of what he considered to be unnecessary decorative detailing." What does "massing" mean here?
  • See note 1. --DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• "After the First World War he increasingly simplified his style and his later designs are pared-down Art Deco and modernist, influenced by European architecture." This sentence seems to be divided into two chunks: that of "After the First World War" and "his later designs". Are these different time periods or one in the same? If different, they should be separated with punctuation. If the same, extra words should be trimmed: "After the First World War he increasingly simplified his style of design to pared-down Art Deco and modernism as influenced by European architecture."
  • It's the same time period. "later" has been removed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Holden was a member of the Design and Industries Association and the Art Workers' Guild and believed strongly in "fitness for purpose"." Where does the phrase "fitness for purpose" come from? What is it referring to? More context needed.
  • It was a common motto used by the DIA. I don't think that it needs further explanation here (see the Holden on Architecture section); the context is in terms of the fitness of a design for the purpose of its product.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It should either make sense or be removed. Currently it does not make sense unless the reader happens to be a member of the DIA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • "Fitness for purpose" and the variant "fit for purpose" are quite common terms. In what way do you feel this does not make sense?--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The meaning of the phrase itself is obvious; the thing that does not make sense is why it has been included in this sentence. It is not immediately clear from the way that the sentence is written whether "fitness for purpose" refers to architecture, these particular organizations, or architects in general. In the case that it refers to an architectural philosophy, why has it been randomly jammed into this sentence about organizations? You've told me here that this is because it was a common motto of the DIA; my point is that the relationship between the phrase and the DIA has not been made clear. Thus, it does not make sense. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • OK. I've redrafted to remove the words and explain it in conjunction with his belief in an unadorned style.--DavidCane (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Although not without its critics, his architecture is widely appreciated." Appreciated by whom?
  • Covered in detail in the following sections.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• "His station designs for London Underground became the house style influencing designs by all architects working for the organisation in the 1930s." The phrase "house style" is ambiguous, particularly in an architecture article. I suggest linking or rewording.
  • I have changed it to "design standard".--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Modestly believing that architecture was a joint effort" A joint effort between whom?
  • All of the parties in the construction process - architect, client, engineer, tradesmen, etc.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• There is no material in the lead that summarizes Early life or Family life. Topics that are important enough have primary sections are also important enough to be summarized in the lead.
  • I don't believe that it is necessary to cover every section of the article in the lead. WP:LEAD says that the purpose is to establish context and summarise the most important points including the reasons for notability. The early life and family life sections are relevant to Holden's life story, but not important in setting out why he was a notable architect. --DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:LEAD also says: "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." By my calculation, Early life and Family life together comprise just over 10% of the body prose. In theory, 10% of the lead should be devoted to those sections, though in practice I think a single sentence with a key point from both sections would be fine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I will see what I can fit in.--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I have added a few words in a couple of places to give a small bit more on his background.--DavidCane (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• "his later designs are pared-down Art Deco and modernist" As far as I can tell, this is the only instance of "Art Deco" in the entire article. The lead should not introduce any information that isn't present in the body.
  • Art Deco was used a bit more in earlier drafts, but his style does not quite fit into that category, so it has been removed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have one non-lead comment: Is it necessary to include the entire text of "If Whitman had been an Architect"? The answer is "no." It should be excerpted briefly, summarized, or removed altogether as you see fit.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I asked myself this question. Because of the poetic formatting of the quote, it appears quite long on the page although it is shorter than some other quotes I have seen in terms of word count (e.g. a couple of the quotes here). I believe that at least some of the quote needs to be included as it shows very clearly Holden's passion and the strength of his belief in the new form of architecture he was espousing (even if it sounds slightly mad to modern ears). If it does have to be trimmed I think the first two paragraphs are the core of what needs to stay.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  If the first two paragraphs are the core, then let's just keep that and nix the rest. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • OK. Trimmed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank

[Prose discussion moved from FAC page] Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "H Percy Adams" have a full stop?
  • Fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Adams' practice specialised in the design of hospitals and a number of Holden's early designs were for buildings of this type": Of this type? Were they hospitals or something else?
  • They were hospitals. I don't see the problem with this sentence.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Is my tweak acceptable? - Dank (push to talk)
• "His red brick arts and craft elevations": I think of an elevation as a drawing, but you seem to be using it in a different sense here and later. What does it mean?
  • Just an alternative word for a façade.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you use another word? The Cambridge Dictionary, Webster's New World and Merriam-Webster all give the "drawing" definition but not the "façade" one, so I think readers might get confused. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I work in construction so it may be that the usage isn't widespread. Façade would be the best alternative. I'll change it.--DavidCane (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• "diminution": I don't understand; here's one dictionary's definition.
  • The OED's first definition of "diminution" is "The action of diminishing or making less". In this context the other architects' lack of attention to detail diminished the quality of their designs.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "some lacked Holden's attention to detail – a diminution dubbed by Pick as "Holdenesque".": I'm not following. Why would being less like Holden's make something Holdenesque? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Pick was saying that the work was like Holden, but diminshed in quality, derivative and without Holden's originality. He was using "Holdenesque" in a slightly disparaging manner as one might say a design was a pastiche of another's style. The context is clear from the Orsini source. --DavidCane (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I follow now; see if you like what I did. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
          • That's fine.--DavidCane (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I noticed you reverted lowercasing "principal architects", saying that it was their job title. Do you have examples of job titles that are always uppercased? Even "president" is almost always lowercased when it appears after the name, and never when it's also plural, in both scholarly AmEng and scholarly BritEng. There are several good online BritEng style guides that cover this, such as The Guardian's, at "capitals", "jobs". - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• "and from which new ceremonial routes would.": Something's missing.
  • "radiate" was missing.--DavidCane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)