Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish Parliament Building/archive1

Scottish Parliament Building
I think this is quite a comprehensive article and deals fully with the subject and related controversy. I know it's not the most exciting of topics but I'd be eternally grateful to anyone who could take a look and give their thoughts/opinions/recommendations/criticisms (anything!). Thanks Globaltraveller 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Globaltraveller 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some points and recommendations I'd like to make:
 * Review by DVD R W
 * Too much is blending with the Scottish Parliament article imo. I would recommend avoiding the especially in the lead, and try not to use the same pictures between the two articles. For this article you should show the building right away not the flag.
 * This article is well researched but needs more than just local sources, you need some broader coverage. Also look less at the politics and finances and more at the art and architecture especially since this is about the building.
 * You should find more sources in architectural monographs, journals, and magazines - and include info from them.
 * I think you are giving undue weight to editorial controversy and problems and not enough coverage of the building in terms of design.
 * Most images of buildings can't be used as fair use because of Fair_use item #1. Maybe the model and the aerial would be ok, actually I don't really think so, and the others, while professional looking and informative can fairly easily be replaced with free alternatives. There are some at commons:Category:Scottish Parliament.

Best of luck, DVD+ R/W 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review. In response to your specific points: Thanks again Globaltraveller 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and that is does blend a bit too much with the parent article and will change this, and find a suitable free use image of the building, or at least part of it. I think the should have a presence on the page, but perhaps not at the top.
 * I already have some sources from architectural journals and magazines, which broadly day the same things as the "local based" sources. However it really won't be too difficult to extend these references into the text.
 * I have to say I disagree on the point of neglecting design of the building in favour of the controversy. This is not a purely architectural article per se. The design of the building, and its specfic components runs to much more than 50% of a pretty big article anyway. Having looked at some of the specific architectural reviews of the building design, these represent opinions rather than anything else and don't really add too much what is already on the article in this regard. I don't think there is much more that can be said in terms of design (perhaps a bit, as there is always room for improvement).
 * I will change the aerial image for a Free Use one (which is slightly different, but similar in this regard). The committee room image is Fair Use, but there is a committee room roof image I can replace it with. The other Fair Use image is the model which I think will be fine so won't change it.


 * It seems like you have a lot to say about this and are willing to do plenty of research which is very good, because it is a very important building. Your 50% observation is spot on and I would still consider expanding the architectural and design coverage in this article to 100% if there is a full article worth of information (which in this case I think there is). Looking again at your references I see some architecture websites that I didn't notice before, but there must be some more info you could use from the books about EMBT or primary sources from EMBT, El Croquis or one of the magazines with "architecture" in the title, and varied newspapers. Primary sources are essential but you also need some that are more objective and have some distance. There is a point at which you might consider an additional article such as "Problems, (or criticisms) and financing of the Scottish Parliament building" or even then separate articles for criticisms and financing as long as each separate article stays on topic and doesn't simply restate the same. An example of a series of well developed articles on the subject of one building is at fr:Modèle:Tour Eiffel but there are others. Notice that there isn't a finance or criticism article though there must have been many criticisms when it first opened and one could be written from the archives. PS don't forget to use edit summaries. DVD+ R/W 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And you need to mention Benedetta Tagliabue- an important partner in Miralles' office EMBT, it wasn't just Miralles you know. DVD+ R/W 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Benedetta Tagliabue is mentioned in the article. If there is to be an article of 100% architecture it should be on an Architecture of the Scottish Parliament Building article, as opposed to purely here? Looking at some similar articles on other buildings they devote a large proportion of their space to history and events surrounding these buildings. Even the principal article of the Eiffel Tower (far longer than this one), I can see (even in my limited French) has quite a lot to say on it's history and other things not purely related to design. I will nevertheless try to incorporate some other architectural sources into the text, to give a wider range of references. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering if we ought not to create a Fraser Inquiry sub-article? There are already several articles on public enquiries, and that type of article will probably be more common in the future. I do not think a rename to "Architecture of" is a good idea. The building is the architecture. Or am I missing something? --Mais oui! 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the building incorporates all the elements that are part of it - its function, its history and its design (and, yes, it's controversy and problems) You certainly could create another article purely for the Fraser Inquiry. There is so much that could go on that article. I'm not suggesting the article be renamed, but if one wants to concentrate fully on architecture (ie no history, no function, no location, no controvery, no problems etc), then a distinction has to be made. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)