Wikipedia:Peer review/Brutalism/archive1

Brutalism
I am fairly proud of this article after having done a lot of research, expansion, and copyediting to make it not only look good, but explain its topic well within appropriate contexts.

I'd like to see it be a suitable nominee for FAC. I am sure that my involvement in it limits my ability to assess its fitness with those requirements.

Should something be expanded? Reworded? Separated? Is more detail or information needed somewhere? Is there a glaringly omitted section? Is the list OK or does it need to be moved off?

Regards, Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 23:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very informative article. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, so I don't know if these remarks are relevant, but maybe something could be said about:
 * The article is focusing primarily on the exterior of Brutalist structures. Is there anything noteworthy to say about the buildings' interiors?
 * How does Brutalism relate to other art forms in the 50s, 60s and 70s? Was its influence restricted to architecture alone, or did it cross over into other fields as well?
 * Some other remarks about the article:
 * Try to find and include some references: they are required for a FAC. Obviously tons of books have been written about Le Corbusier and his contemporaries, so finding some good sources shouldn't be too difficult.
 * About the images: they are good, but the number might be a bit excessive. IMO, they should be there to illustrate various aspects of the style and not be a redundant gallery. Also, some of them do not have a proper tag or are not free. I'd suggest to remove Trellick Tower (is somewhat similar to Unité Marseille), Tricorn Centre (not a very clear picture) and the Indiana Art Museum (ditto). Maybe others as well. Incidentally, these are also the images without the right tags.
 * You might want to think about not using both right- and left-aligned images at the same time. The column of text next to the Boston City Hall is quite narrow on 800x600. Also, the "illustration left" text is actually below the image, so that's not very helpful
 * Change double hyphens into em-dashes.
 * The list: I don't know. It's longer than the article itself. Turn it into a "List of notable Brutalist buildings", maybe?
 * One other thought: I think the "Figures" section is a bit short. Maybe you could take some of the buildings from the list and discuss them in prose here?
 * Use of Wikilinks in the list: you don't need all the redundant wikilinks here. Wikify a term only once (London, UK, United States, etc.)
 * That's all I can think of for now. Good luck. --Plek 01:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Some of your comments made me go "duh, of course!", so I needed the kick. :) - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 20:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I love it: it's a good article with a good set of images. I'm wondering whether the text can be expanded a little. The Figures section is tucked away at the bottom, and I would have liked to meet the major players nearer the top. I'm sure that there's more that can be said about them. Is it possible to involve more context here? Where did brutalism come from, and where did go? How do those buildings fit into the built landscape? What were the great furores about concrete carbuncles? I'm sure there's plenty more fuel for this one. Gareth Hughes 01:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good ideas; I am a bit reluctant to go into too much discussion of major players whose influence on Brutalism are already discussed on their own pages (like Peter Smithson). The extent to which they and the style are tied presents the risk of being redundant with those articles. It and the rest are good angles, though. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 20:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't go into horrid detail, but the most important people in the movement should be covered in some manner at a summary level with their most important contributions mentioned. That bit of redundancy is fine and helps the understanding and presentation of the topic. In this article their relative contributions can also be discussed cohesively, instead of fractured into different articles. - Taxman 22:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Some general comments. 1) It needs references. Where did all of this material come from? Cite that. :) 2) The list of structures should really be moved to a separate article that is linked to from this one. 3) Man, that top picture is incredibly unnatractive. If that is the goal fine, but perhaps one of the other, more attractive pictures can be made the lead one. - Taxman 22:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)