Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
I would like to see a peer review of this article so that it can achieve FA status. &mdash; Linnwood 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou
Informative and with nice prose, but no citations and some other issues. This is my review:
 * A general remark for start. There are no inline citations. This is a problem for FA. Check WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.
 * I'm not sure the lead offers a nice summary of the article. There is almost nothing for his life. It is just about this architecture. And I'm also not sure about the formatting: a stubby first par and a long second one. Maybe WP:LEAD could help you take some ideas.
 * I also see that in the main article as well we don't have info for his early life, family, edication. The 22 first years of his life are missig from the article!
 * "But after World War I, Mies began, while still designing traditional custom homes, a parallel experimental effort in modernist design ...". IMO it is not nice to start a new section with "but".
 * "More than perhaps any other practicing pioneer of modernism, Mies used philosophy as a basis for his work." I think this sentence must go in the beginning of the section and then elaborate and "build" on it.
 * "This masterpiece showed the world that exposed...". "Masterpiece" may be POV. In any case, you must use verifiable sourcces to support this charecterization.
 * "The house has been described as sublime, a temple hovering between heaven and earth, a poem, a work of art." Again, by whom? You definitely need to cite here, so as to avoid WP:WEASEL and [[WP:POV}}. And does everybody describe it as "sublime" etc.? Aren't there any criticisms?
 * "The house exists today as a part of the Elmhurst Art Museum.[1]." Avoid external jumps like this one. Use proper citations and take advantage of Template:cite web and Template:cite news.
 * "But when none were able to match the genius and poetic quality of his own work." IMO POV!
 * "Facts and Figures" is stubby. Get rid of it. If necessary, incoroporate its content in the main article.
 * "See also" is toooo long. And why red links there? Do you intend to create them? Trim the section (and if possibly get rid of it) by incoroporating the useful links there in the main prose.--Yannismarou 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Susanlesch
A good subject and a good FA for Wikipedia to have. I wish you luck.
 * The red links could go away completely (unless you've requested articles for them).
 * What about adding a page since he has some notable aphorisms?
 * I searched for and did not find the word "residence." I have no training in architecture but guess it might replace "Residential Home."