Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/William Burges (architect)

William Burges (architect)
I would really appreciate a review of the article on William Burges. It's currently rated C and I'd very much like to move it to B or, better still, GA. Following helpful advice from Elekhh, I've sought to substantially improve the referencing and to remove the many personal opinions with which I originally littered the article. But whether I've done enough, I'm not sure. I hope it's reasonably well-written. I'm 99% certain it's factually accurate and the added references should make it verifiable, but does it still have original research? I've looked at it so many times I can hardly tell. It's pretty broad in its coverage, addressing the main points of his life and work. It's certainly stable and I think it's pretty well illustrated, for which I can take virtually no credit. And does Wikipedia recommend Burges's or Burges'?

Any suggestions most gratefully received and I promise to respond promptly - apologies, Elekhh. KJP1 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Preliminary comments: I had a quick look, and see a lot of progress since the last review. I would like to make following suggestions for improvement:
 * Improve inline citations. Always use author and date of publication for the notes, such as "Pevsner (1967)". Also consolidate citations using the format  as I did here. You can further consolidate notes, by removing page numbers where not necessary. In case of direct quotations, always use the page numbers, but otherwise is sufficient to provide the book or a range of pages within the book (for instance the pages of a chapter like 239-269) which are relevant. This way it can be avoided an excessively long list of notes, and will have a better overview of the sources.


 * Will set to work on this rather daunting task. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Improve lead per WP:LEAD. The lead should provide a summary of the article, in a number of paragraphs (maybe three). There should be a section in the lead which mentions his most important works for instance. The criticism part of the lead should aim to be neutral, for instance by quoting others than Crook (will come back to this later). Also the legacy section would deserve to be summarized in a sentence in the lead.


 * Had a go at expanding this to try to summarise his life, works and the article itself. Is it a bit long now?  And has it shaded into unreferenced "opinion"?  KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better now, but yes, it is too long, it should be trimmed to be be more summary style. Have a look at Charles Holden or Kenzo Tange for comparison. --Elekhh (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have tried to reduce but retain a full summary. Think its ok now (?)


 * Yes, definitely much better, good work.--Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Organize gallery. The gallery seems to be a nice selection of images, but it would be better to have some kind of structure to it. Could use subsections based on building types, location or based on the role Burgess had in their design, whatever you consider most appropriate. I would also suggest adding the design and completion year is the simple "(1863-4)" format to the image captions.


 * Had a go at this, using Mourdaunt Crooks's own "themes". But that won't mean much to the general reader, perhaps?  Will sort the captions.  KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now better organised and dates added for the "lead" pictures.
 * Better organised, yes, but a bit excessive content. I think one image exemplifying one important work would be the maximum in scope. See guidelines for image galleries. If you wish to have a grand gallery, you can make one at Commons. --Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Feared you'd say this. Just can't resist adding Burges pictures now I've worked out how to do it.  Will take out all the non-notable ones. KJP1 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hope these comments will help. Once these points are addressed will have another look. In the meanwhile I hope other editors will also review the article. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Elekhh


 * Many thanks, I shall get right on to these. Amplifying the lead will be relatively simple, as should organising the gallery.  I can also tidy up the references but here my incompentence in wiki-editing will slow me down.  But there's no rush; as Bute said "Why should I hurry over what is my chief pleasure?"  Best regards KJP1 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good progress, slowly but surely the article is getting closer to become GA nomination worthy. --Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick note to thank you for your continued support. Been busy at work this week but will start on sorting the referencing this weekend.  Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a read through. It's an interesting article, you've obviously put in a lot of work especially with the citations . I would like to make the following suggestions for improvement:
 * Improve the lead. I still think the lead is a bit long. It may be that you remove the direct quotations and instead just summarise the sections below. Also, I'm not sure about the use of "the greatest". I know that there is some discussion of this on the article's Talk page but with such a good article why court controversy at all by describing him as such (even with a citation)?
 * Reduce the number of repeat links for Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch as per WP:REPEATLINK
 * Castell Coch. I know the castle has its own article but I think it would be useful to expand the description of it within the "Burges and Bute" section because at the moment there is quite a lot about Cardiff.
 * "machines for living in.." I find this comparison problematic as it suggests (to me) that Burges' work was somehow an alternative to twentieth century modernism (although it preceded modernism by a number of decades).
 * Legacy. What happened to Castell Coch after Bute died? Presumably it was sold or gifted to CADW at some point?
 * Hope these comments help. Keep up the good work. Kenchikuben (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I firstly apologise for the delay in responding but a combination of leave and work have meant I've neglected Burges of late. Secondly, thank you so much for the time taken to review the article, for your very kind comments about it, and for your most helpful suggestions.  I hope to get back to working Burges up to GA over the next month or so and shall certainly take your comments on board, which will benefit the article greatly.  With many thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)