Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)

Untitled

The AIADetroit Guide to Detroit Architecture (Hill and Gallagher), says the Belle Isle Casino is often erroneously attributed to Albert Kahn. The Guide attributes the building to the firm of Van Leyen and Schilling (page 262).

The Detroit Recreation Department, Friends of Belle Isle and National Park Service all list Kahn as the designer of the 1907 structure. Perhaps there is confusion with the older 1887 one? Rmhermen 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the older one the 1884 Belle Isle Casino the one that Ferry attributes to Donaldson and Meier? Carptrash 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Freinds website: "The Belle Isle Casino was once said to be the finest casino in the United States. The original Casino was built in 1887, and the current structure was redesigned by Albert Kahn in 1907." Can't say I know more than that. Rmhermen 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the 1907 building pictured in AIADetroit I must say that I'm inclined to think that it's a Van Leyen and Schilling creation. I see very little of AK in it. However, I'll keep looking at what ever info can be found 1,600 miles away from it. It is a shame that there has not been a good Belle Isle book put out by the Friends of BI. Some friends! Carptrash 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

julius?

wow, not a single word about Julius Kahn, Albert's brother and partner and the fellow who actually developed and held the reinforced concrete patents. I wonder what Julius would say if he happened to look down (or up) on us right now. --Lockley (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

packard co. factory was built in 1903

Hi, I didn't want to edit or mess with this page. But I wanted to let you know that packard co. factory was built in 1903, this was the first one built using the Kahn System of reinforced concrete.

However,I would absolutely love it if I am wrong!! I am the owner of a Kahn building in Syracuse, NY that was built in 1906. I also have copies of the original blue prints and news paper articles supporting the dates for my building. My building was called the "Brown & Lipe Gear Co."

If you would like to talk more about it, my email address is: thegearfactory@gmail.com

Thanks, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.68.158 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Kahn (architect). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527152826/http://www.albertkahn.com/what.cfm to http://albertkahn.com/what.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Kahn (architect). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026134611/http://buildingsofdetroit.com/places/times to http://www.buildingsofdetroit.com/places/times
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.buildingsofdetroit.com/kahn.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Article content structure, No. of bldgs

After reading the recent Times article, I thought our article also ought to say Kahn designed nearly 2000 buildings all told, but I could not figure out just where to fit that in. Perhaps we need to shift the final paragraph of the bio section into the building section and divide the latter into three parts. Maybe one of you who has previously worked on this piece has some advice. Tnx - phi (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It has got a lot of good sources. It was made by a user with a lot of Ga experience. (User:Doug Coldwell). It has a picture. etc.Sahaib3005 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

At a quick glance, this clearly does not meet GA requirements: there are many unsourced statements, as well as short and floating paragraphs. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, ok. I have removed it’s GA status. Maybe in the future. I still think it is better than start class (which it is currently assessed as).Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Two things: "Better than start class" =/= GA. That's the easy one. The other thing is that you say I have removed it’s GA status. Maybe in the future. This is a confusing statement. You can complete a proper GA review to help the nominator improve issues and get it to GA class now. A GA review is not a simple "yes" or "no", which you seem to be treating them as. Please read the GA criteria and instructions that are already linked on the right side of this page to help reviewers. Kingsif (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And "better then start class" would mean taking a look at the various classes on WP:ASSESS - maybe the article could be assessed as C-Class, as in "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. ..." Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear from the comments above that this was nominated prematurely, as happens sometimes with this nominator. I'm closing this nomination as unsuccessful, and hope it will receive the attention it needs prior to any subsequent nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Some comments from the retired electrician

I apologize for not being able to do a proper review quickly (harvest season). The Kahn-Soviet affair has been the subject of so much recent research (mostly in Russian and some German) that it takes quite some time to get around... Some brief notes:

• Lead: "He was the only consulting architect on Soviet industrial construction" - perhaps it is correct for a very narrow definition of consultancy, but it just sounds strikingly incorrect. Around the same time as Kahn, or even earlier, the Soviets employed hundreds of foreign architects. Best known is Erich Mendelsohn with his Red Banner Textile Factory, but he was just one of them. Then there was the large firm run by Ernst May - smaller than Kahn's but otherwise very similar. And the Hannes Meyer firm, and more.
• Kahn's first contract with the Soviets was not to "to design the Stalingrad Tractor Plant". It was much narrower in scope - to produce working documentation for the construction of principal (not all) factory halls. Their layout had been already predetermined; shop floor design and manufacturing flow were handled by other American firms. After this, Kahn received a larger contract for the Chelyabinsk tractor plant, with a wider scope, and only after Chelyabinsk he became the master designer for the Soviet industry. Although, again, he wasn't the only one in this role.
• Kahn stood out above his foreign peers and competitors because his firm had the unique ability to produce the designs in record time. In the US, his 400-men firm produced a complete new factory design in one week. Ernst May did fast-track designs in the same fashion, but Kahn had far more resources to handle many concurrent projects.
• The number 521 is just one estimate; there is also a number of 571 although this may be an old typo that began a life of its own [1].
• Are there any American sources on the architecture of Kahn (artistic side rather than factory design)? Retired electrician (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Retired electrician: Thanks for making the commitment of reviewing this article. I will keep a Watch on it and when you furnish a Report for suggestions to improve the article based on the Six Good Article Criteria I will respond to the issues, so that I can get the article promoted to Good Article status.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• "to train and supervise Soviet architects and engineers ... They trained more than 4,000 Soviet architects and engineers" - awkward proximity of two statements makes an impression that the 4000 were a direct and intended contractual outcome. They were not. Kahn never subscribed to train thousands - merely the staff that was necessary to run his business. But the Soviets cheated, and started replacing/removing trainees when they were deemed trained enough. They literally came and went in droves. Kahn's published correspondence shows that he wasn't aware of the trick, and wasn't exactly happy about it. Retired electrician (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from a former architecture student

My impression based upon reading the article (and not contradicted by my knowledge of the subject) is that Kahn as an architect he was a very good engineer and businessman during an era of great creativity. Perhaps this impression could be remedied by more in-depth sources:

• Building the Modern World: Albert Kahn in Detroit
• The Legacy of Albert Kahn

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 19:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am starting this review now and will record some comments below shortly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "architect lay-out arranged factories" (in both the lead section and in the body) doesn't seem likely to be understood by a broad audience, per WP:TECHNICAL.

•  Done

• The same could be said for "conglomerate production industry manufacturer".
•  Done

• This phrase is also confusing, but it looks like a simple typo: "where developed production techniques in the assembly line manufactured the Ford Model T".
•  Done

Everything else that follows in the bulleted list below are comments that I think can improve this article, but I don't think are required for GAN. Overall, the article is well written.

• "some 20%" would sound more encyclopedic if it was "about 20%" like it says in the body.
•  Done

• "In addition," in the lead isn't necessary.
•  Done

• Is "on Soviet industrial construction" in the lead necessary?
•  Done

• "Kahn immigrated as a child with his family to Detroit, Michigan, in 1881, when he was 12" would be easier to read as "At age twelve in 1881, Kahn immigrated with his family to Detroit, Michigan"
•  Done

• This semicolon should probably be a comma: "engineer; and"
•  Done

• MOS:YEAR says "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation that replaces the comma". I see a bunch of years that are not followed by commas or other punctuation.
•  Done

• Comma doesn't seem necessary: "Fellowship, to study"
•  Done

• I feel like Kahn's first name comes up too often. It's only necessary to use it sparingly in a biography article.
•  Done

• "on William L. Clements Library" is missing "the", I think
•  Done

• "post the bankruptcy" sounds like it should be "following the bankruptcy"
•  Done

• In the bulleted list, I see some state/province names abbreviated, but not all. Either abbreviate all or none to be consistent.
•  Done

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The first sentence of the "Personal life" section seems out of place and should be moved to the Biography section. That leaves two short sections that don't seem to warrant this section at all, per MOS:OVERSECTION, which says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." So that section should either be built out more or all the content should be moved to the biography.

•  Done

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Looks good.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   The claims "the world's first airport hotel", "the year's most beautiful commercial building", and "second largest office building in the world" are not supported by the next following reference (ref 10). Even if it did support them, I believe each of these claims ought to have their own individual citation given the significance and WP:LIKELY-to-be-challenged nature of each.

•  Done

• Citation 3: the book says 19%, so it doesn't seem right to me to increase that number to 20% by adding "about" when you have an exact number.
•  Done

• Citation 13 should be moved to the 4,000 figure in the way that citation 3 is at the 521 figure, since those two sources back up those two figures, respectively.
•  Done

• Why "as of 2006" when citation 17 was published in 2020?
•  Done

• Lastly, though it isn't necessary to pass GA, I recommend improving the article by making the citation style and format consistent throughout the article.
•  Done

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Everything appears to be drawn from secondary sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Not that I can find.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   An architect this prolific and with this level of name recognition must have some notable influence and recognition in the field, but I don't see anything about that in the "Legacy section" and there is no "Critical reception" section either. Just a few lines about this is all that is necessary, I think, to cover the main aspects and pass GA standard here.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Looks fine.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Looks fine.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Looks fine.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All satisfactory: a mix of fair use, rights released by copyright holders, and public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Looks fine. Almost too many images for the length of the article, but for one about a prolific architect, I think it's expected to be loaded with images of his buildings.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the issues I raised above can be addressed, I will be happy to pass this nomination. I just may not be super responsive until November. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your changes look good! I edited the article myself a couple times just now to tweak some unclear wording. Please check my work to make sure I didn't accidentally make anything inaccurate. The only thing left in the way of this nomination is my comment under criterion 2a, above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: All issues under criterion 2a have been addressed. Can you take another look at what I added in the Death and Legacy section. Will that work to cover Legacy and "Critical reception"? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Great addition. That looks sufficient for GA standards. Congratulations! Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)