Wikipedia:Peer review/John Douglas (architect)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John Douglas (architect)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, encouraged by the comments at Talk:John Douglas (architect)/GA1, I wonder if it is worth submitting it as a FAC. My last attempt with a FAC resulted in so much aggro that I decided not to bother again. But perhaps this article will be deemed more worthy. Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I had a hard time finding any prose issues in this interesting, richly detailed, and well-illustrated article. That's unusual. I noted a problem with layout, explained below, and I made a few other suggestions, none of which should cause much trouble. Overall, this looks very good to me, as it did to the GA reviewer.


  • Since there are so many John Douglas articles, it would be good to include a disambiguation line at the top of the article. See John Adams for example. This one might work:


  • "No family papers have survived and none of the documents from the office at 6 Abbey Square have been found." - "None ... has" rather than "none ... have"?
  • This section has two problems associated with images. On my computer monitor the caricature overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGES advises against this. Also, the St. Paul's Church image displaces the section head, "Architectural styles and practice", below, and that's a no-no too. Perhaps "Architectural practice" and "Personality" could be combined under a single head; this would make room for the two images, I think, and it would help solve another problem. It's best to arrange directional images so that they look into the page rather than out. The caricature would be slightly better if positioned on the left. Alas, MOS:IMAGES says not to place an image immediately below a third-level head, so the caricature can't go directly over from right to left. However, if the "personality" text preceded the "architectural practice" text, the caricature could go on the left further down in the section, and the church could move to the top but to the right.
  • I have attempted to solve this by deleting two images (more about them below), switching the sides of some images, and merging sections (more about this below, too). Does it work? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating in the section heads and subheads any of the main words of the article title. Since "architect" is part of the article title, "Architectural practice" is a bit of a problem. Perhaps the new subhead for this section could be "Personality and partnerships" or something similar.

Architectural styles and practice

  • This head also repeats "architecture". Suggestion: "Styles and practice".
  • "Architecture" deleted from both headings. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Output and patronage

  • "Being based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales... " - Suggestion: "Since he was based in Chester, most of his works were situated there and in North Wales... "
  • No. Chester is a city; Cheshire is a county. To make this change would be misleading and incorrect. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I conflated Chester and Cheshire somehow. What I was noticing in the sentence, though, was that "being" seems to modify "works" but really refers to Douglas. Perhaps "Since he was based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales"? Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1865 he was commissioned to design the entrance lodge and various other structures for Grosvenor Park in Chester... " - Delete "various"?
  • "Douglas received a large number of commissions from him and from his own son, the 2nd Duke, throughout his career." - I had to stop for a moment to consider to who this meant. Maybe "the duke's son"?
  • I had problems with this sentence and have amended it in a way I hope makes it easier to understand. Is it OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fine. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


  • The image of St. Johns Church, Over, bumps against a third-level head and should be re-located. It could go to the right, which breaks the left-right-left pattern you've established, but I don't think the Manual of Style insists on the staggered pattern. Oakmere Hall in the next section down has the same bumping problem. It could go the right, and Grosvenor Hall Lodge could move to the left. Alas, St. Werburgh Street, Chester, also bumps into a third-level head and should be re-located. St. John's, the Evangelist's Church, has the same problem. Everything is connected to everything, so to create a new, equally attractive layout without violating the no-bump recommendation will require a fair bit of tinkering. The no-bump rule doesn't apply to second-level heads.
  • "The Gothic Revival was a reaction against the neoclassical style, which had been popular in 18th and early 19th centuries... " - Insert "the" before "18th and early 19th centuries"?

Early works (1860–70)

  • "Douglas' earliest significant commissions were for the 2nd Baron Delamere and were very different in type and style." - I thought that from context this must mean very different from each other, but it might be more clear to make this explicit: "very different in type and style from one another".
Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


  • "Many of the secular buildings in this period were smaller-scale buildings." - Perhaps "smaller-scale structures" to avoid repeating "buildings"?
  • "The Gelli (1877) is a house in three ranges... " - I wasn't certain of the meaning of "ranges" here but couldn't find anything to link to.
  • "Range" is an architectural term synonymous with "wing". I have added a link which is not perfect, but which I hope gives an adequate explanation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The link is very helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Douglas & Fordham (1884–98

  • "From 1892 the partnership designed a number of houses and cottages in Port Sunlight... " - Delete "a number of"?
  • "Between 1895 and 1897 designed a range of buildings on the east side of St Werburgh Street in the centre of Chester." - Missing word, probably "he".


  • Since the frontispiece image overlaps two sections, perhaps "Publication" and "Reputation" could be combined under a single head if that doesn't defy logic in too pushy a way.
  • This image will cause problems wherever it goes, it does not look good and does not add anything to the article, so I have deleted it (it can still be found on Commons). The comment led me to look again at the formatting of the sections, realising that those toward the end of the article are on the short side. "Publication" does not (to me) link comfortably with "Reputation", but there is no reason why "Reputation" should not link with "Influences and legacy", so I have merged them. This left "Publication" rather orphaned, but it fits with "Significant works", so I merged it there. I think this works OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


  • I checked the licenses, and all look straightforward to me except possibly Image:Boughton Stpauls.jpg because it's not easy to see how a fact-checker could verify the license based on the link from the image description page. It links to the site but not to the page on which the St Paul's image appears. How can a fact-checker be sure that released it into the public domain? I may just be missing something that's right in front of me, but I thought I should ask.
  • On the Commons page the author has released the image to the public domain, so licensing is not a problem. But the photograph is (in addition to its position on the page) a problem. The church is notoriously difficult to photograph, lying between a busy road and a virtual cliff overlooking the river. The photograph is taken from the other side of the river and is unsatisfactory for the purpose of the article because the house in front of it has too much prominence and reduces the impact of the church. So it has gone and IMO the article is no worse for that Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Someone who notices the reliance on Hubbard and Pevsner might reasonably ask if there are any reliable sources that you might have missed or omitted. You've no doubt already thought about this, but I thought I should mention it.
  • Good point! This has caused me difficulties because the only comprehensive authoritative source is Edward Hubbard's biography. The ODNB entry is almost completely a synopsis of the biography and the only references it gives consist of the biography and articles in journals which are not easy to access (and which I guess are covered in the biography anyway). If someone mentions it, I can only answer along these lines. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. I have never seen it empty. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)