Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review

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

Endeavour House[edit]

It is a very important building and is one of the most energy efficient buildings in Europe. Please could someone kindly take a look at the article. Wrightie99 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting topic, from an architectural and a Suffolk point of view, though I wouldn't say its unknown architects and one article from Building magazine prove it is "very important". All the same, the Building article is very long and I think it would help if you directly quoted some of its opinion, considering the author is likely to be an architectural expert.
I've rearranged the sections. It seems more logical if the history (giving context and background to the article) is raised first. After that you can describe the design features to your heart's content, and describe any press reaction/feedback received. Generally in other similar articles, the awards list goes towards the end of the article, with sources of course. Nice bit of work though, a useful addition to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. To add a nomination:

  1. Place {{WP-Arch-peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.
  3. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top, with the name of your article in the link brackets, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page.
  4. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress.

How to remove a request
You may remove to the current archive any

  • inactive listings or listings older than one month,
  • inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
  • articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}.

Browse the archives.


Hoffmann Architects[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia, having only made minor edits to existing articles before composing one. I am hoping for feedback on both the content and organization of this article. Hoffmann Architects is notable primarily for their restoration of major architectural icons, for which they have won a number of awards. Have I made their relationship to these buildings clear? How might I improve the description of what, specifically, the firm's role is in conserving significant architecture?

In addition, I welcome suggestions for further categories of information to provide. I have examined a number of other articles on architects and architectural practices, but I am still unclear on which headings and information is standard. Any help on adding images would be useful, too. Thanks in advance for guiding a new Wikipedian interested in the field of remedial architecture through writing her first article!

--SenchaDragon (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments from Sionk (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I had a hand in some early edits of this article when it was not in a good state. Now (after your improvements) it seems to be an good example, relative to most other articles about architecture practices. I particularly like the fact the notable projects are all sourced, which is a rare occurrence indeed!
The major problem I see is that the "Practice" section, being sourced almost exclusively from the Hoffmann website, could be seen as self-promotional. Descriptions of companies need to be based on independent, reliable sources. Evidently, the 2011 Hartford Business Journal article gives plenty of information to base a description of the current practice.
Generally I would say that, though the article has plenty of sources (many of which aid verification), it lacks (like many other articles about companies) suffcient general news coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. But the proliferation of WP:IRS, the verified list of awards and the general lack of excessive WP:PUFF will mean it's very unlikely to be nominated for deletion (certainly not by me!).
Hope that helps!
Thanks so much. I appreciated all of your help early on, especially as I was then new to Wikipedia, along with your feedback now. It looks like others have helped with the citations in the "Practice" section, as well. General news coverage additions are a good bit of advice. I'm hoping that other editors will be able to contribute there, as well. Great to be a part of WikiProject Architecture, and hoping to contribute to more articles soon.
Thanks for taking this newbie under your wing.