Talk:Architecture of Scotland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay in getting to this point.

I've done a couple of very quick reads of this article and it certainly is a good article (not the same as Good Article) and it has an impressive breath, bibliography, illustrations and citations; but I've not checked any citations, etc. I'd "guessitmate" that the body of the article is somewhere between GA and FA. I don't regard the WP:Lead has being in the same category (but my view could change as this review progresses).

I'm now going to work my way down the article, starting at the Prehistoric era going down to the end, and then going back to the Lead. This stage is mostly "negative" reporting, so it will mostly be "problems", if any. Feel free to add specific questions, comments, responses relating to specific points below mine. That way is easier for me to manage the review. I hope to have this stage completed by tomorrow night. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Prehistoric era -

• From a present day perspective, the statement: Groups of settlers began building the first known permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9500 years ago, and the first villages around 6000 years ago. Skara Brae on the Mainland of Orkney dates from this period and is Europe's most complete Neolithic village. Neolithic habitation, burial and ritual sites are particularly common and well-preserved in the Northern Isles and Western Isles, where a lack of trees led to most structures being built of local stone, however Scotland as a nation and a land did not exist and Orkney was not part of Scotland until 1468. There is a nice caveat used in the Lead, "modern borders of Scotland", and another one in Roman and post-Roman constructions, "what is now Scotland", I believe something similar is needed here.

 Done I added a caveat.--SabreBD (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Roman and post-Roman constructions & Middle Ages-

• These two sections look OK.

• Renaissance & Reformation -

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• These two sections look OK.
• Note: Renaissance specifically mentions "Scottish idioms and materials (particularly stone and harl)", Reformation does not, but the illustration is a stone building. - I think I might be coming back to materials in just a few sections/subsections.

 Done I added a word or two on materials (and tried to make this consistent throughout the article.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Restoration & Eighteenth century-

• The first looks OK, as does the second, in general.
• Its a long time since I was in Edinburgh New Town, but my memory was stone buildings (ashlar), slate roofs and lead flashings (well visible on the public views). Materials don't get a mention and the first mention of Crow step gables appears in the 19th century Gothic revival subsection.

 Done - I added a word or two on materials, but couldn't find anything on slate roofs and lead flashings, frustratingly. It may be one of those things that I can keep an eye open for.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nineteenth century -
  • Urban growth and planning -

• There is mention of materials and quite a good discussion the good and the bad parts of Urban growth and planning. However, I think there is something missing.
• I remember the "black" old (well, probably built between the 1880s and 1910) tenements on the Paisley Road (and P. Road west) getting cleaned and appearing pink or "blond" sandstone in Paisley and Glasgow just before the building of the Garden Festival, but similar cleaning took place in the Byres Road area around the University; and Aberdeen had granite buildings. Scottish town and cities all had these terraced rows, many built by tradesmen (plumbers, carpenters, etc) as an investment to provide for their old age pensions. There was also a hierarchy: the cheapest were architecturally plain, then decorated with bow windows (each floor with a single-end and two double-ends) and the posh "Wally closes". The local pink Giffnock stone was considered better than blond stone that came from outside Glasgow. One of Frank Walker's books is already cited, but his studies on Glasgow tenements were documented in two books The Tenement: A Way of Life (A Social, Historical and Architectural Study of Housing in Glasgow) (1979) and The City that Disappeared: Glasgow's Demolished Architecture (1981). Very many of this buildings are still in use, having been brought up to standard (WCs often being installed on the half-landings of the stair-towers).

 Done as far as I can at the moment. I added sections on materials and explained the basics of tenements, which was quite an important missing element. I have not gone into quite this level of details as I thought it would disrupt the text. If it still needs more there may have to be a separate section.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Gothic revival & Neo-classicism -

• These two subsections look OK.
• Note: Gavin Stamp did a book on 'Greek' Thompson - Gavin Stamp (1999), Alexander Thompson: The unknown Genius, Lawrence King Publishing in association with Glasgow 1999 festival Company. Isbn 185669-161-6.

• • New engineering -

• This subsection looks OK.

• Twentieth century to the present -

• Looks OK, and I'd probably accept it as it is, but a few comments:

• Can regeneration of city/town centres and reuse of former industrial sites for housing fall into the category. Leith is being gentrified, the site of Glasgow's St Enoch's station became St. Enoch Centre and there are warehouse /loft conversions in what was Glasgow's "Merchant City" and also on the River Clyde near the Armadillo. All these processes are resulting in people living in the city centres, whereas previously the process was to move them out to schemes and (overspill) New Towns.

 Done the exact wording was dependent on the sources found.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is, I consider, the weakest section. It should conform to WP:Lead.

• It starts off: "The architecture of Scotland includes ...... and the influence of that architecture elsewhere in the world.". Well perhaps it does, but this topic is not mentioned in the article and it (well) clashes; on this basis (the nationalities of their designers) are not the the two Roman walls Roman, the Scottish Parliament Building Catalan architecture and the SECC English?
• The lead is also a bit "wordy", it read more like an essay than a summary.

 Done I cut quite a bit out of this. I may just go back later as fresher eyes may find a bit more that can go.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For instance (I'm sorry if this is teaching "grandmother to suck eggs, but I would suggest this style, but you don't have to this way, if you have an alternative way of achieving the same aim):

The architecture of Scotland includes all human building within the modern borders of Scotland, from the earliest identifiable settlements in the Neolithic era to the present day, and the influence of that architecture elsewhere in the world. The first known permanent houses on Scottish soil date from around go back 9500 years ago, and the first villages around 6000 years ago, of which Skara Brae on the Mainland of Orkney is being the earliest preserved example in Europe. From the Bronze Age we have evidence of the occupation of crannogs and roundhouses, each built on an artificial islands are Bronze age and and from the early Iron Age there are stone buildings called Atlantic roundhouses and larger earthwork hill forts are Iron age. ..........

........ ........

I happy to discuss the Lead here in more detail, if needed. Four paragraphs is about right and the balance of the material is right, I just think that it should use less words.

There are only a few points above (and I regard them all as minor) so I'm putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Very well referenced.

   C. No original research:

   Wide ranging.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Wide ranging, but not "thin" in detail.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I very very happy to be able to award this article GA-status. I was initially concerned that the Lead was over-wordy, but that has been toned down and the other minor problems that I saw have been addressed.

In terms of its scope, extensive bibliography and referencing, and illustrations has the making of FA. I would recommend WP:PR as a first step and I'm happy to help, if I can, in improving this article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)