Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

Request for Review: Raphael de la Fontaine

Hello, I have created a draft article for the architect Raphael de la Fontaine and submitted it for review. I would greatly appreciate it if someone from this project could take a look and provide feedback or expedite the review process. The draft can be found here: Draft:Raphael de la Fontaine. Thank you for your time and assistance. Rafidlf (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Palace of Queluz for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Buro Happold

Buro Happold has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Category overlap - when is a Mock castle not a folly?

We currently have two categories, Category:Mock castles in England and Category:Folly castles in England. I am struggling to make any distinction between the two. Aren't all Folly castles Mock castles, and vice versa? The question was prompted by my uncertainty as to whether to categorise Bollitree Castle as a Mock castle, or a Folly castle. I'd be grateful for any thoughts. I appreciate it is likely to be far from the only instance of such seeming categorisation overlap. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The categories are probably confused, but, according to the category pages, the mock castles should be houses (which look like castles), while Folly castles are buildings constructed primarily for decoration (which look like castles). TSventon (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TSventon - that’s very helpful, as was the tweak, and accords with the advice User:Alansplodge gave on the Milhist page. So broadly, if they are a country house masquerading as a castle, e.g. Penrhyn Castle, they are a mock castle, but if they are really just a piece of decoration/frippery masquerading as a castle, they are a folly. So I shall call Bollitree Castle a mock castle. But, as you say, the content of the current categories suggests this distinction may not be widely understood! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

p.s. Actually, going through the two cats, a case could be made for most of them remaining where they are, so maybe the confusion was mine! But what about something like Castle Barn at Badminton. This served a clear purpose, albeit agricultural rather than residential, so should it be a Mock castle, rather than a folly? KJP1 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. A folly might double as a banqueting house say, but any serious utility takes it out of the folly class imo, though I expect there are edge cases. Folly castles are usually built as ruins, no? Apart perhaps from a tower like Severndroog Castle or the crenellated "Gothic Tower" at Folly Central, Painshill (not in either category). I think towers can be accepted as both practical and follies. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I think that works. Broadly, and accepting there will be exceptions, if it serves a practical purpose beyond the merely decorative, then it’s Mock, if not it’s Folly. Now, what about a sham castle? KJP1 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles. On how to recognise the recent adoption of Welsh names in English for castles in Wales. DankJae 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Help in GA Review: Machu Picchu

The Machu Picchu article is currently in GA nomination process. I’m seeking feedback and support from the community to help advance the nomination and eventually reach FA standards. Any review or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --JustEMV (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks so much for undertaking this big task! I am Peruvian myself and got the chance to visit MP for the first time this year. Such a treasure! I've gone through the article and made several edits, but here are some larger suggestions:

1. Move the "Dispute over cultural artifacts" into its own, full heading. It should not be a subheading, and definitely not a second subheading
2. Focus on the "Layout" section. It's a bit of a mess. Few citations, lots of one-sentence paragraphs, little cohesion. There's also a lot of different separations to keep track of. Urban/rural, uptown/downtown, not to mention the tourism zones that the Peruvian govt has recently put in place. Additionally, in the "Construction" section, the words "Hurin" and "Hanan" are used unintroduced. Speaking of the tourism zones, there is no mention of them. The quotas for visitors are also significantly out of date.
3. Look out for tense and chronology issues. The Incas are obviously not in MP anymore, and the article should reflect that clearly in every instance. I found (and corrected those that I did) several issues in this domain.
4. I've added lots of "citation needed" tags throughout the article. They need to be addressed
5. I'm not really sure how this stuff works on Wikipedia, but there's some kind of template for metric/imperial conversions. I don't know how it's employed, but there are some numbers lacking conversions. See last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Transportation" section.
6. The last paragraph of the "Transportation" section makes little sense to me. Elaboration/clarification needed there

I'm not interested in the actual reviewing process, but I'm happy to give the article a second pass whenever you'd like. Please reach out with any questions if any of my edits or suggestions don't make sense/look wrong.Thank you again! SSR07 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SSR07!

Thank you for your thorough feedback and edits! I’ll make sure to address all of your suggestions (I've already fixed the citation needed tags). For the "Dispute over cultural artifacts" section, I think it’s best to keep it as a subheading due to its specific focus and the presence of a related Wikipedia article. I’ll also update the remainining conversions and clarify the Transportation section. I’ll reach out if I have any questions about your suggestions.

Thanks again for your help! JustEMV (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Taliesin (studio)

Taliesin (studio) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Architecture of Denmark

Architecture of Denmark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on use of the term "imposing"

There's a spirited debate ongoing at Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing" about the appearance of the term imposing here [1]. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to post here before now. Come one, come all! EEng 17:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Design management

Design management has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FP candidate

Hello! One of the earliest photos of Machu Picchu is nominated for Featured Picture. I’d really appreciate your support—thanks! --JustEMV (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing about the 69 destroyed cultural heritage in Gaza

At Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#List of sites, we have a table based on a UNESCO list published 5 days ago, showing the 69 main cultural sites destroyed in Gaza. Many do not yet have articles about them.

Please help in creating articles about these destroyed sites.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Chiswick House

SilkTork, Chivalrick1, Dr. Blofeld, Chiswick Chap, Johnbod / anyone else with an interest/view

I've been thinking about how we might approach improving the Chiswick House / Architecture of Chiswick House / Chiswick House Gardens articles. While there is a lot of quality content, all three articles suffer from a lack of sourcing, many sections in each of the articles being completely uncited. That being said, the History section of Chiswick House is in a reasonable state, it's the Villa building and Gardens sections which are rather cite-lite. There may also be an issue with personal opinion as the main author of much of it, User:Chivalrick1 was connected to the house, but I haven't gone over it closely enough yet to take a firm view. On that point, they haven't edited for seven years so I doubt they will respond.

As to sourcing, I have many of the books, although not all, so I think that can be mostly addressed. My initial question is: is there a consensus that we want three articles? The Architecture of Chiswick House was a 2013 split-off, when at least some editors felt that Chiswick House had become too long. I can see the logic of two articles for House and for Garden, a la Stowe House / Stowe Gardens, but the first of those seems to cover both the history and the architecture pretty well in one article. Do we need the third, on Architecture, as a stand-alone? Responses to that, and any other initial concerns would be much appreciated. I've copied in editors I know have participated in earlier discussions on this, but views from other editors are obviously also very welcome. KJP1 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with 3 articles. For the gardens, Jacques, David (2022). Chiswick House Gardens. Swindon: Liverpool University Press on behalf of Historic England. ISBN 978-1-80085-621-9 is listed at "Sources", but not cited afaics. User:1948dlj will (ahem) certainly have a copy. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good thinking KJP, I say it would be well worth the effort! I have no problems with a separate article on the architecture as long as it is much more comprehensive than the main article without being bloated. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with there being three articles to cover those subjects - they look appropriate at the moment, especially the Architecture one, which is very detailed, and would likely either bloat the main article if merged, or some useful information might be lost. Just at a glance the main article looks well cited, though I note that Chiswick Chap has done some recent edits, so they likely have improved the situation. I agree that there are large chunks of the other two articles that require citing, and a good examination of the quality of the existing content - especially the unsourced stuff - would be very useful. All encouragement and positive thoughts to those who get stuck in to improve these articles, especially the two sub-articles. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)