Talk:111 Somerset/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations that are used are appropriate. Images appear appropriately licenced. This article is certainly stable - in fact almost no work has been done on it for several years, which raises the question of whether it is current and accurate. That aside, it has a number of issues:

Significant elements of the text are uncited, including quotes, for example: "The staggered façade provides views to the exterior, while offering voids in between that afford "breathing space"."
Deletion of all the uncited material would leave the article deficient in terms of coverage of the subject at the level of GA. So there needs to be some homework done, including making use of the two cites currently listed under "references".
There is some text that is POV and/or unencyclopedic: "The building's design proved that "corporate" need not mean "tall". Instead, the horizontal was emphasised in the design, rendering the building approachable and accessible, befitting PUB's role as a public supplier of gas and electricity."
Another example: "...makes the building congruent with the various departmental sub-divisions unlike in conventional office building floor plans, while simultaneously creating a unique structural profile. It reflected the actual distribution of office spaces required by PUB's departments at the time, with more space needed on the upper floors." What is meant by congruent here? And if they mean the size of departments (as the later sentence suggests, then this sounds like a sales pitch - after all, there is no inherent logic to why a department should be on a higher floor or lower floor than another one, so it wouldn't matter (from that persepctive) what order the floor sizes were in. My point is that this sounds like architext weasel words - we need to make sure that an independent source is quoted when discussing the attributes of the building, or write something like "The architects claimed that..."hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last line of the history says who moved out in 2007, but not who moved in.
"Whereas in La Tourette and less so in the City Hall, there is an intrinsic logic in the handling of form, the approach for the PUB Building was mannerist" - this sentence is barely comprehensible and needs work. It should not just be deleted though - it talks about design style, and comparison to other works of the period, and as such is both relevant and important.

I'll put this on hold, though that may be being optimistic. Once the above issues are sorted out, i will review the text more carefully. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the architecture articles that I nominated were written by other editors (mainly Sengkang) years ago. I am trying to polish them as part of my 2014 Singapore GA drive. Finding the books that Sengkang used would take time, but fortunately, most are available at our national libraries. May I suggest that you review Tan Chay Wa's tombstone trial first and come back to this later? --Hildanknight (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: Kindly note that now everything is cited. Have you found a native speaker of English who is familiar with architecture and willing to help rewrite the article? --Hildanknight (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did it myself. I deleted "Externally, the two long façades graduate irregularly in width and length by chamfered steps." because i couldn't understand what it meant, and I deleted "Its mechanistic expression complements the scale of development in this locality." because this is an opinion that really needs to be explicitly attributed to a particular architecture critic. Thanks for doing the legwork, we're done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]