Talk:Robert Lawson (architect)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Lawson (architect)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears to be stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• Numbers greater than nine should be written numerically, see MOS:NUM.  Done, other numbers written numerically are dates, ages, monetary amounts or measurements. Adabow (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some captions have full stops, and some do not. Ensure that it is consistent.  Done, according to WP:CAPTIONS, nominal groups don not warrant full stops, but full sentences do: adjusted in line with policy. Adabow (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• There are low-level grammar and punctuation issues throughout. Examples: "Thus Lawson was never given opportunities such as Francis Petre enjoyed when the latter recreated great Italianate renaissance basilicas..." and "While the school's entrance arch was obviously designed to impart an ecclesiastical or collegiate air, the school has the overall appearance of a prosperous Victorian country house" (full stop missing) - I suggest an editor who has not seen this article before, give this a once over in order to correct such errors.
• My biggest concern is that large areas are unreferenced, like most of the sub-sections of "Works in the classical style".

Summary: The article has many major issues that need to be resolved. The largest area requiring work is in referencing. Unfortunately, I have to say that in its current state, the article falls short from being a Good Article. I will allow seven days for major improvements to be made, before making another assessment of this article.

Final summary

Firstly, thank you for all the hard work in making this a better article. The time line provided for improvements to this article has now ended, and a decision has to be made.

The criteria for a Good Article states that the article must be:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

Unfortunately, there are too many large areas in this article that does not meet this criteria, as they remain unreferenced. Due to this, one may conclude that the article contains portions of original research. As such, I have no choice but to fail this article at this time.

The article has the potential to become a Good Article, however, it requires more work in the areas specified above. I hope to see this article renominated soon, and I look forward to seeing it as a Good Article in the near future.

If you feel that this assessment was not conducted correctly, you may seek a reassessment.

- S Masters (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As the primary and principle editor of this page, I have no wish for it to be a "good article" it is already a good article in that it is factually accurate and comprehensive. In fact, I disapprove of "good articles" and consider it a meaningless accolade and would never knowingly write one. To have nominated this page out of the blue and to have it reviewed is presumptuous. If people want good articles credited to their name perhaps it would be best if they wrote them themselves.  Giano  13:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the "failed good article" template because this is actually a very good article. It has many contributions by acknowledged and real life experts far greater than I in the field of NZ architecture. Wikipedia is fortunate to have the page and such expertise. It is comprehensive and covers all salient points. Pages on the arts should be nominated and judged by those with an understanding of the subject. Secondly, anyone with a basic ear and understanding of English cannot bear to see a template reading "....a Arts good article." When those so beloved of decreeing what is good and not good finally learn to read and write their own language, then, perhaps I may pay them some attention. Until that happy day, that template will not be on this page.  Giano  20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

and someone who clearly has no idea how to correctly use the indefinite article has restored it. That about suims up wikipedia's "evaluators." God help us if these are the people who judge what is good!  Giano  21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Split infinitive. (Yes, it is an excellent article). Kittybrewster ☎ 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Gadfium [1], that's much better. What a pity these people who self-appoint themselves to judge the work and prose of others have such little knowledge of what is "good English" before attempting to judge that of others.  Giano  21:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, this was not so much an issue of poor English as poor programming. The template does not say "a Arts", it says (simplified) "a [topic]", and no provision was made for the topic beginning with a vowel. There is probably some feature of mediawiki which will allow "a" to become "an" in this situation, but an easier fix would be to reword the template along the lines of "[pagename] was nominated as a good article in the [topic] area...". If you wish to pursue this, I suggest you do so at Template talk:FailedGA.-gadfium 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Gadfium, I have no interest at all in templates or those who choose to spend their lives creating them. The template quite clearly said "a Arts good article." If people can reach adulthood (one assumes they have) without learning how to use the indefinite article of their own mother language, then I fear they are beyond any help and advice that I can offer. I will continue to write in my own preferred style.  Giano  21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)