Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deconstructivism

Deconstructivism
Peer Review

Notable movement in recent architecture. The article underwent a major re-write in April, and has been through a peer review, accessible above, and most of the points were met. Self-nom, with collaborators. DVD+ R/W 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 *  Object.  I love architecture, so I object reluctantly. There are not enough inline citations, and some of the paragraphs are too short, only having one sentence. Other than that, the article is high quality and is close to FA standard. If these changes are made, I would love to support. RyanG e rbil10 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made changes that you suggested, added more citations and merged and expanded short paragraphs. Are you willing to take another look? DVD+ R/W 03:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I now Support, my objections have been addressed. RyanG e rbil10 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object per RyanGerbil - also I'd prefer "Architects associated with deconstructivism" be merged with "See also" as well since it is just a collection of wikilinks. RN 21:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Isn't "Deconstructivism" also the name for a movement in works of art and literature? Fieari 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of Deconstruction. But if not feel free to contribute any examples you are thinking of. DVD+ R/W 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but weakly object - while most of my issues with the prose have been taken care of (see the peer review above), more inline citations are necessary. Some other suggestions:


 * As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
 * Combine architects w/ see also section, as noted above.


 * There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
 * Double check for typos like .[1].
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 02:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more notes, formated the notes, merged some short paragraphs, expanded a section, and merged the architects associated with deconstructivism section. Are you ready to take another look? DVD+ R/W 03:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job, a few things about the footnotes though: there is a citation needed that needs to be referenced, I would prefer if there were at least 1 footnote per section, and the web footnotes (like 5+8) be cited according to WP:CITE/ES and/or . Also, if possible, please provide page numbers for the books under the footnotes section. AndyZ t 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been edited since listing for Featured status. (Self Nom.)--Mcginnly 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I've moved around some of the images and templates near the top because having an image on the left at the beginning of an article is highly distracting to (an English-speaking) reader. I know virtually nothing about the subject, so I can't speak for the article's accuracy, but it seems detailed and well-sourced. I would prefer the use of cite book for references, but I won't make a big deal of it. — C uivi é nenT on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 16:16 UTC
 * Support Although I agree with Andy that more inline citation would be good. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment.
 * Article has only two major sections (leaving "See also", etc.). This looks awkward and I suggest that the sub-sections of "History, context & influences" can be made full-fledged sections.
 * The sentence in the lead: "It is characterised by ideas of fragmentation, non-linear processes of design, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, and apparent non-Euclidean geometry, which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and envelope." should be broken into multiple sentences. More importantly, it is unclear whether the italized part (done by me) is a qualifier for non-linear processes of design or a separate characteristic altogether.
 * In the last sentence of the first paragraph, use some alternative for "stimulating" as it looks like passing a judgement on the subject.
 * In the last paragraph of the lead in "Deconstructivist architecture exhibition", italics should include "exhibition".
 * It is unclear why postmodernism's return to "historical trappings" are sly and ironic.
 * "With its publication, functionalism and rationalism, the two main branches of modernism, were overturned as paradigms according to postmoderist and deconstructivist readings, with differing readings." - confusing.
 * "Rather than Separating ornament and..." - why is the "S" capital?
 * If possible, try to get at least stub articles on the red-links mentioned in the article.
 * Wikilink of "Grid" leads to disambiguation page. Fix it. Same with "Locus". Find others and fix.
 * "...own Santa Monica residence, (from 1978), has been". Use either braces or commas. Not both.
 * What is "erasure"? Provide context (or link to definition).
 * "Lin's 1982 project for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with its granite slabs severing the ground plane, is one." Ending looks abrupt. Copyedit for better flow.
 * "1988 MOMA exhibition" does not justify being a separate paragraph as its seems of very less significance as the other broad topics. Either make it stand out or merge with some other.
 * In the same section, the quote and the image overlap in 800x600 screen resolution. Fix it.
 * The sentences in "Computer-aided design" need to be re-ordered/re-organized so that context is present in the beginning, and not in the middle.
 * Provide link or context to "exigence".
 * "The two aspects of the critical, exigence and analysis are found in deconstructivism." I think the word "regionalism" is missing after "critical".
 * "The Wexner Center brings vital topics such as function and precedent to prominence and displays their urgency in architectural discourse, in an analytical and critical way." How?
 * Make sure that reference links are after punctuation marks, not before. At many places, a space is missing after the reference link.
 * "Critics of Deconstruction see...". Why is "of" capitalized?
 * This looks enough for now. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)