Talk:Zvi Hecker/GA1

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this stage. This is quite a reasonable article and it is of about the standard required of a Good Article, so it will not be Quick Failed.

Having said that, the article does not fully comply with the requirements of a Good Article, especially those covering a live (living or dead) person, so I'm not going to pass it yet. I will place on article On Hold so that the points below can be addressed; and after that I will reconsider the article against the criteria for a Good Article (see WP:WIAGA).

Considering the article section by section, with the WP:lead considered last:


 * Early career -
 * This seams to be reasonable. Its readable, referenced and appears to be comprehensive.


 * Projects -
 * This has two paragraphs, one about Bahad 1 and the other about Bat Yam City Hall, both of which are named in the second paragraph of Early career. Each of these paragraphs is readable and referenced.


 * However, these is no explanation of why these two projects, and only these two projects, are discussed in this section. The previous section lists four projects, so why only 50% coverage?
 * Well, there are several projects that I didn't even mention. I think the reason I covered some more than others is because of having to cite and the relative availability of source material. I don't think I need to list every single project, and describe them in detail, in order to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. The list of four buildings with Sharon and Neumann arrived at a stage when the article was a translation from the Hebrew Wikipedia. Would you rather that I didn't mention projects without going into detail or should I try to fill in more information? DVD 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand the citation/source material arguement, but let us ignore it for the moment. The Early Career section gives "their joint works include the Mediterranean Sea Club in Achzib (1960-1961), Dubiner House (1963), the Chaim Laskov Officer Training School (1963-1967) Bahad 1, the main officer training school of the Israel Defense Forces, just later the synagogue (1969-1971) at the same academy,[7] and the Bat Yam city hall (1963-1969)." and the Projects section only discusses Bahad 1 and Bat Yam City Hall, so I'm looking for some statement in the Projects section to justify this section. I suggest an introductory paragraph in Projects, somewhere along the lines of .... "This section looks at two projects in some more detail. Bahad 1, in the Negev desert, because of the problems of (harsh desert / building micro-climate ?) and Bat Yam city hall because of .... This should give some plausible architectural reasons for discussing some of them.Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some more information on that project and an introductory sentence to that paragraph. I hope that is sufficient. If it isn't please let me know what would be. DVD 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Later and ongoing work -
 * This provides a readable, referenced and wide ranging discussion of his architectural designs.


 * Having checked the references (those that I can read), Zvi Hecker also 'teaches', having various professorships, etc, at various universities. This is not mentioned at all in this article; and it should be included in this section. There are various ways that this could be done, either inserting it in date sequence amongst the 'architectural' works, or by moving the current text into a subsection on 'architecture' within Later and ongoing work and adding another subsection on 'teaching'.
 * Good observation, let me see what I can add. In which reference did you read most about his teaching? Was it this one? Doesn't seem to me to be enough to base a whole section on, but since I wish I knew more about his teaching I'll keep looking. DVD 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I half-remember two references, that was one of them.Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about a section entitled "Outreach" or "Publications" that includes some information on his teaching, lecturing, exhibitions, and printed publications in one section? DVD 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, give it a try; and make sure that you have the relevant citations, but you know that anyway.Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:lead -
 * The WP:lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article and to summarise the main points within the article. At a superficial level it appears to acheive both aims, however, I see two problems:


 * The first paragraph contains the referenced statement: "Through submitting designs to numerous architectural competitions, he has accumulated a substantial oeuvre of exceptional built and unbuilt work.[1]" The reference is Zvi Hecker's own web site. This fails the test of Reliable sources, as it is a Self-published source.
 * I can move that note to an external link section. I wanted to place it prominently (first) in the notes since it provides the best overview of his work on the web, but as the only external link in its own section, the reader should find it easily enough. DVD 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced that reference with a printed one, the catalogue from an 1996 exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art which shows some of his paper projects and completed ones. DVD 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference 2 in the second paragraph also fails the test of Reliable sources, as the reference is a blog site "Zvi Hecker News" which appears to be Zvi Hecker's blog site.
 * Another very close statement by the architect was printed in Der Tagesspiegel and I understood the article on the blog site to be an English translation of the Tagesspiegel article. I placed it early in the notes because I wanted to show his writing, but I can move it to a section listing his books and writings. DVD 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for now, I've just deleted that sentence and can try to find a way to write that ref into the article later. DVD 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of these topics appear in, or are expanded in, the article.
 * I can rearrange them then. Would you mind if the lead was all summary and had no notes? DVD 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead does not have to have notes if it is only summarising information that is given elsewhere in the article. If it includes material that does not appear elsewhere in the article and that material is (or could be) likely to be challenged then it needs to comply with WP:verify, although WP:WIAGA is slightly more 'relaxed'.Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm therefore putting the article On Hold so that these 'defects' can be addressed. I'm happy to answer any questions directly related to this WP:GAN. They can be added to this page and I will consider them and reply on this page.Pyrotec (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for reviewing the article. Expect my reply later today, and I should have some questions, and these points addressed (at least initially) by this time tomorrow. DVD 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My points above appear to have adequately address the 'defects' that I highlighted in my initial review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)