Wikipedia:Peer review/McMansion/archive1

McMansion
This article is obviously NPOV (NPOV or POV?!), but it's architecture, and it's suppose to be humour. Is it valid to go thourgh and npov or should we just leave it as it is?
 * I think it's very valid to go through and NPOV this article (some words and phrases are very loaded, and there are some value judgements in there); the McMansion is a widespread kind of house, and term is spreading too, I think. I'll have a crack at this article if I get time. Katherine Shaw 14:42, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Since you listed this here, anon user 66.234.211.233 has gone though and POV'ed the hell out of it. This article needs a lot of work. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some good work done here. One element not well discussed is the autocentrism of the McMansion - auto access from the lot front, often 50% or more of lot frontage; garage often >50% of structure frontage; garage footprint area nearly equal to firt floor footprint area; etc. May want to include trussed roofing in materials. "Brick tape" is a common term for non-structural brick siding applied for appearances.
 * I wanted to compliment the authors on some good, complex sentence usage. There are a few word choices/usages you may want to look at: doublewide as opposed to double wide, sidelights as opposed to side lights, two-story as opposed to two story. I'm assuming studwall is the specific term. Here's a sentence which might be recast:
 * This style of house will usually have two stories; again, this is an economic consideration as it allows for taller living spaces in a portion of the building and the costs of roof and foundation are shared by two floors elsewhere in the building.
 * consider:
 * Economic and aesthetic considerations usually lead to two story designs; the additional story lends itself to taller ceilings, and a smaller roof and foundation for the area reduces the cost per square foot.


 * I could get stickier, but this article is pretty good. Do a spell check though... - Amgine 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eh, this article's neutrality is questionable. 22:09 Dec 15th 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalleyMP (talk • contribs)