Talk:Architecture in early modern Scotland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amandajm (talk · contribs) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is properly structured and has an introduction that gives a brief summary of the contents, as required.
 * It appears to be a very well researched article.
 * The references are sufficient, and come from books rather than online sources. I cannot check more than a couple. They all look reliable.
 * There are lots of links, but they are not superfluous, as the article skips along and covers a lot of ground.
 * There is no obvious lack in the subject matter, even though it is covered briefly.
 * There are appropriate directions to Main Articles in the various sections.
 * The illustrations to the article are all well chosen and appropriately employed. The lead pic is an excellent choice.
 * There are a number of negative issues, all of which could be put to rights quickly. They are mostly matters of expression or style.  I have left a list on the talk page detailing minor improvements.
 * A few more dates are required
 * I strongly recommend that the article is moved from Architecture in early modern Scotland to Architecture of early modern Scotland because that is the usual form.
 * Only needs a bit more work!


 * I have begun working through the suggestions of the article talkpage. I think the suggested move can be easily done (since there is no existing article at that title), but I am not sure how that impacts on the review process - will the article have to be relisted at GA nominations?--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Passing by and saw your question. I think it shouldn't be a problem for the GA process as long as you also move this review to Talk:new title/GA1. That way everything still links up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Khazar2, that's very helpful. I will just wait and see how Amandajm wants to proceed.--  SabreBD  (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In case it is unclear, I believe I have implemented all the suggestions and I am just waiting for a discussion about how we approach the proposed move.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Some observations (as requested by Amanda) from Giano
I think this is a good and mostly well written page, but in places it's a little lighweight. I know it links to the more specific pages, but as this, by its title, is claiming to cover the subject, it might as well do so; therefore, I have a few comments here:


 * "In Scotland in the early modern era vernacular architecture, the ordinary buildings created by non-professionals for everyday use" Sounds as though we have hoards of professional yuppy lawyers and estate agents living in smarter houses with magnolia walls and fitted carpets elsewhere. Needs rephrasing


 * "Contemporaries noted that cottages in the Highlands and Islands tended to be cruder,..." Reference needed - who were these contemporaries?


 * "This was followed by re-buildings at Holyrood, Falkland, Stirling and Edinburgh,[8] described as "some of the finest examples of Renaissance architecture in Britain" Indeed they were, so lets have little bit about them, or at least Holyrood and a picture of its Renaissance/Palladianesque courtyard if nothing else. All we have is an image of a gloomy old castle on a hill a long way off - it's telling us nothing.


 * You have here File:Holyrood Palace gnu1742.jpg examples of several of the styles mentioned - that photo is tellng a story (I would even have it as the lead image); I do't think some of the images in this article are working hard enough, they should be explaining a lot more. They are sitting on the page actually doing very little - some of them nothing at all. Don't be afraid to use a caption to explain a technical point. Pages on architecture don't have to slavishly follow the MOS.


 * The Reformation section seems to be illustrated solely by the image of an iron gate with something indistinct behind it - there must be some better images than that for this section.


 * "The unique style of great private houses in Scotland, later known as Scots Baronial, originated in the 1560s" The syle was not confined only to great houses, but by 18th cent (within the scope of this article) was used in industrial buildings and tenements too - this section needs considerable explanation and expansion. This is probably Scotland's most enduring and best known indigenous style, so don't pass so quickly over it.


 * "His individual, exuberant, style was built on the Palladian style, but with Baroque motifs inspired by the work of Vanbrugh and Continental architecture"Could be better explained - was he really inspired by Vanbrugh? Baroque influences, their origins and their interpretation in Scotland are important - this seems to be quickly glossing over the where and why. There's a lot more to be said. We need something about the differences between Palladianism and Baroque north and south of the Border.


 * The page seems to have come to a very abrupt end. Can we have a little summing up of what we have hopefully learnt and at hint at what was to follow?  Giano   18:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have come to the point where I have to say: what the hell is going on in this review? A series of suggestions were made by the first reviewer, most of which were not part of the GA criteria, and which I almost immediately implemented, except the one issue (the move) for which the issue is just one of how it is implemented and which is waiting a reply to my query. If there were issues that would stop this article being made GA, then they were not pointed out in the initial review and that makes them rather difficult to implement. After a considerable wait and no reply to prompts, the article has been promoted by the reviewer to B status - very nice, but as far as I am aware not part of the GA processes. Now at the request of the original reviewer there are a series of further suggestions. Much as I always welcome suggestions, these are not linked to the GA criteria and look suspiciously to be erecting another series of hurdles. I am sorry to say that I think this needs to go back to the review process as outlined at Reviewing good articles and it may be a good idea to look at What the Good article criteria are not. If not then I guess I will be forced to ask for an alternative review.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me! I'm only responding to a request on my talk page. I hate GAs and think it's a daft flawed process. You do what you like with the page.  Giano   21:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was promoted to because it had obviously been out of the C category for some time now.
 * I asked Giano to take a look at it because, while I was hesitant to promote it, and knew that Giano would make suggestions that were very much to the point.
 * Part of being a GA is content, surely? The suggestions that he has made concerning content, referencing, expression and illustration are all good ones.
 * As for stalling the process, that was my doing.  And I apologise, if I haven't already done so.
 * Amandajm (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology over the time process, but, nevertheless I do not want to waste any more time on this. If you are reviewing an article for GA you need to stick to the criteria. Seriously, please read What the Good article criteria are not, particularly the bit under point A that says: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently." This doesn't not call for perfection or for anything a might prefer, only that it is clear. It is also important that the reviewer informs the nominator through the review so that anything unclear can be fixed. You gave a list of points and I fixed them. Normally when that is done a reviewer will respond by making a decision, or indicating that points have not been met. They do not usually ask someone else to find some more points. Can you see how this looks to me? I responded to your points almost immediately, you then ignored a series of polite prompts from me to get a decision and any further advice over what is approximately three times the normal length of the process. Then, without explaining any issues or even responding to my edits, you call in someone else, seeming to find more issues, which, I emphasise again are well beyond the demands of the GA criteria. To me, this looks like you are trying to find reasons not to promote the article. Since we are where we are, can we get back to the point of all this? Could you please check the article against the criteria and nothing else, and make a decision. If you do not feel that you can do that, could you please let me know so that I can ask for a help or seek a new reviewer without any more time being wasted.--  SabreBD  (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comment My original review led to this comment:

Think hard about what every sentence means, and every descriptive word means. This is particularly necessary in the introduction and in the leading statements of every section and new paragraph.
 * e.g. "Architecture in early modern Scotland encompass all human building within the borders of the kingdom of Scotland..."
 * The process of working through this, sentence by sentence, obviously hasn't happened.
 * You have fixed those problems which I pointed out, but obviously still haven't read the article in a really critical manner to find the other problems of expression.
 * While the article still includes sentences that lack clarity, like the ones that follow, it hasn't met GA statndards:
 * This relied on the strength of inclined and angled engineered masonry work combined with the ability of earthen toppings that could deflect and absorb artillery fire. bad grammar
 * After the Restoration in 1660, large scale building began again, often incorporating more comprehensive ideas of reviving classicism. More comprehensive than what?   Whose "ideas of reviving classicism"? The second half of this sentence is waffle.
 * Palladio's ideas were strongly based on the symmetry, perspective and values of the formal classical temple architecture of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and associated in England with the designs of Inigo Jones. Um? So Palladio's ideas were based on those of Inigo Jones?  That is the way it reads.
 * General comment: Don't substitute the word "ideas" for "designs" and "buildings" and "architecture". Wherever words like this have been used, they need changing.
 * On the other hand, "ideas" might be applicable in some senses e.g. "Adams' original idea was that the house should stand by the lake, but this didn't eventuate."

Basically, if you are capable of writing an article like this, then you're also capable of subjecting it to close scrutiny. As the reviewer, I don't feel obliged to tell you how to rewrite every single fuzzy sentence. I feel that the suggestion that you work through it sentence by sentence ought to lead to positive improvement. The expression needs tightening up!

For me to rewrite the stuff would require me doing research into this subject, while lacking the resources and time to do it. So you got the benefit of comments from someone with far more expertise into this particular area of architecture than I have. This is about producing a good article, not about producing a GA.  Amandajm (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Content: You have made a remarkable statement about Colen Campbell that requires a reference for the statement, and an example to illustrate this extremely important point. Amandajm (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And on the personal level, I find your statement "To me, this looks like you are trying to find reasons not to promote the article" extraordinarily insulting and out of place. You are talking to an elderly teacher who has spent a lifetime attempting to get the best out of students. I bring my expertise (and probably some of my ex-tertiary-college-lecturer manner) to this particular forum. You mightn't like the one, but you can surely benefit from the other. Amandajm (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it best that you fail this article so that I can seek a review with another editor. The vague instruction that every sentence has to be rethought is not helpful and pretty clearly falls into the category of common mistakes listed at Reviewing good articles. It is also probably unobtainable. I will have no idea which sentences you feel are imperfect, or if the solutions are still imperfect. I also have to stress again that this is not part of the GA criteria. I also have to say emphatically that this is about producing a GA, you really cannot arbitrarily impose some other set of standards about what a good article is. On the final point, I in no way meant to be offensive, but I was attempting to get you to see this from my perspective. You may also wish to consider that you are not talking to a fifteen-year old student, but a higher education teacher of over twenty-five years experience. I thank you for your original comments and efforts and wish you all the best. I would be grateful if you can fail the article at your earliest convenience, as it will allow me to move on with the process.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Examples of the sort of sentences that need improving are the ones I've listed above.
 * Also:
 * The extensive building and rebuilding of royal palaces probably began under James III (r. 1460-88), accelerated under James IV (r. 1488-1513), reaching its peak under James V (r. 1513-42).
 * Your verbs are "began", "accelerated", "reaching".
 * There are several ways of fixing the sentence:
 * The extensive building and rebuilding of royal palaces probably began under James III (r. 1460-88) and accelerated under James IV (r. 1488-1513), reaching its peak under James V (r. 1513-42).
 * The extensive building and rebuilding of royal palaces probably began under James III (r. 1460-88), accelerated under James IV (r. 1488-1513), and reached its peak under James V (r. 1513-42).
 * The extensive building and rebuilding of royal palaces probably begun under James III (r. 1460-88) (remove comma) accelerated under James IV (r. 1488-1513), reaching its peak under James V (r. 1513-42).
 * Any one of these three solutions works grammatically. The present sentence structure doesn't.
 * There are multiple of these issues, which is why I suggest that you read it very carefully. My advice was read every sentence.


 * With regards to GA criteria and all the rest, yes, I suppose that I am imposing some sort of philosophy on this (rather than a "standard". What I mean is, the real criteria is/ought to be producing a really good article, not simply getting through the GA procedure.  GA procedure can be fudged quite easily, depending on who reviews the article.
 * Basically, I'm here to review this, but I'm not here to rewrite it. If there are multiple issues of grammar and poor/fuzzy expression then it needs fixing by someone other than the reviewer.
 * So far, you have only fixed those issues that were initially pointed out.
 * What I suppose I ought to ask is: Is English not your first language?

Working through the article sentence by sentence
 * The impact of the Renaissance on Scottish architecture can be seen in the rebuilding of royal palaces such as Linlithgow, begun under James III, but reaching its peak under James V.
 * This sentence has a badly-placed example. The result is that the sentence tells me that Linlithgow was begun under James III and reached a peak under James V.  That is not what you mean.


 * The Reformation had a major impact of ecclesiastical architecture from the mid-sixteenth century, resulting in a simple style, devoid of ornamentation and often on a "T"-shaped plan.
 * The Reformation had a major impact ON ecclesiastical architecture.....
 * resulting in a simple style, devoid of ornamentation and often on a "T"-shaped plan.'  What was on a T-shaped plan?   A style' may be said to be "devoid of ornament", but you need to introduce the word "church" into the sentence somewhere so that it is clear what it was that had the T-shaped plan"


 * From the 1560s a distinctive style of great private houses in Scotland, later known as Scots Baronial developed, which combined Renaissance features, with those of Scottish castles and towers in a larger, more comfortable residence. 
 * It was a "style of house", not a "style of houses".
 * in Scotland, later known as Scots Baronial developed, ...
 * The comma should be after Baronial, not after "developed".
 * which combined Renaissance features, with those of Scottish castles and towers
 * "with" is a conjunction. You have a continuous flow of meaning here:  "this combines with that."   So no comma after the word "features".
 * in a larger, more comfortable residence.  Your last word here is "residence" in the singular, which confirms the fact that "houses" needed to be "house". But the question arises: "More comfortable than what?"


 * After the Restoration in 1660, there was a fashion for grand private houses influenced by the Palladian style and associated with the architects Sir William Bruce and James Smith.
 * OK


 * After the Act of Union in 1707, the threat of Jacobite Rebellions led to considerable military building, cumulating in forts like that at Fort George, near Inverness.
 * "considerable" doesn't add anything. The word "cumulating" means "heaping together (It is the same as "accumulating").  Do you mean "culminating"?  Was Fort George indeed the last?  Remove the comma between Fort George and its location, unless all the military building was "near Inverness.


 * Scotland produced some of the most significant architects of this era, including: Colen Campbell, James Gibbs and William Adam, who all created work that looked to classical models and would be a major influence on Georgian architecture across Britain.
 * The word "including" is a lead-in to a list. A colon is also a lead-in to a list.  Use either the word or the colon but not both.
 * who all created work that looked to classical models
 * It's fuzzy. "Work" doesn't "look to classical models".    People look to Classical models.  The architects looked to Classical models for inspiration.
 * The word "work" in the singular doesn't work here. "Work" for an architect means what he/she does in the office or on site.  The term is "works" and in this case is interchangeable with "buildings".  I recall one of my suggestions to you was that you went through the article and changed words that referred to "buildings" and "architecture" to specific rather than non-specific words.
 * Decide whether "would be a major influence...." is talking about the "buildings/works" or the architects. Structure the sentence accordingly. A new sentence might be preferable.  The future tense "would be' should probably be changed. You could say "having a major effect..."

This is the second paragraph in the Introduction. It has an obvious typo, misplaced commas that affect the meaning, other punctuation problems, plurals where there should be singulars, and expression that is either unclear or mixes the metaphor.

I'm going to say again, read it through sentence by sentence. Because I'm not prepare to dot every "i". If it was just a matter of fixing the misplaced commas, It would have been done by now, by a champion comma-fixer.

I don't know how to make it clearer to you that the article has quite enough content and is well enough referenced, but it has a great number of minor problems and problems of expression which require thought.

Amandajm (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have closed this article as a fail, which I am entitled to do under the procedure. I will be renominating for review for another editor. Thanks you again for your original comments.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. You do that.
 * ...and I'll show you just how flipping easy it is to turn an almost-good article into a "well-written' article. It's not hard. And anyone who claims your background in teching ought to be able to do it, unless you have been teaching in a language other than English.
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Amanda, I know it's the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but don't you feel it might be better to let Sabrebd, having done the spade work, to sort the page as he sees fit? There's always more than one road to Rome you know; I'm sure there are dozens of other pages where your attentions are more needed and probably wanted.  Giano   13:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And you are probably right, but frankly I feel a bit pissed off at this person being so rude as to dismiss your valuable comments, along with mine.
 * Well, it's too late, because i have just sorted it. Nothing that I have done was major. Frankly, I don't have the expertise to do anything major! There is plenty of info there for a GA.
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)