Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chiswick House

Chiswick House[edit]

I have substantially enlarged the Chiswick House and Gardens entry from the initial entry of one page to reflect their iconic and important status in the history of Europeon architectural and garden design. I have included many relevant photographs to illustrate the text and have included detailed footnotes and comprehensive bibliography. I have also included all the recent research and findings from scholars who have recognised the importance of Chiswick House and its architect. I feel this article warrants a much better class rating for quality and architectural importance. Please review all sections. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalrick1 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2010

It's very well done, but there are many more citations required. I don't like too many footnotes, but such statements as "...it is likely that the idea of building a Villa (house in the country) at Chiswick presented itself, yet this notion may already have been present in the mind of Lord Burlington since the time of his sojourn of Italy in 1719" needs reffing; ie:"likely" in the opinion of who? The footnotes (or endnotes as you call them) all require page numbers. I think you need to read through it and ask yourself - whose opinion am I giving and then attribute it. I'm afraid your opinion is not good enough - sorry. Also the page is a little long and laborious - very comprehensive - but laborious. Could the prose be tightened and is any of the info superfluous? I don't want to sound negative because it's really is very well done, but if you want it peer reviewed, these things have to be sorted. I will re-read it continually over the next few days and make other comments. I wonder if "Alternative interpretations for the use of the Villa would not be better hived off into another page of its own, a page on Chiswick House does not need images of monuments in St Peter's, especially when the whole thing is only speculation - it's all rambling on - interesting, but unecesary. Finally, the lead is far too short and should summarise the whole article. Giacomo Returned 08:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This great list setion can be "Important visitors to Chiswick Villa and Gardens" can be absorbed very briefly elsewhere.
Filming and photography is trivia, so can go off to a page of its own, linked from the principle page
Does the further reading section have to be quite so long - it looks to me like any book that has ever mentioned the place.
I have just made this edit [1] and moved this speculative section (which needs to be severely addressed) further down as it was breaking the flow of reality between the house and gardens. However, the page does need a winding up final paragraph. Giacomo Returned 09:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's enough for now, let me know if you agree or want to discuss these points - there's nothing that can't be debated - my opinion v yours. Then we can take another look. Giacomo Returned 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need need all these pictures of the Forum, and other places - that's the point of Wikipedia - it;s not like a standard text book - they can all be linked to from the text - they are distracting, cluttering and probably distorting the text on a small screen. Giacomo Returned 06:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second the point about citations; large sections of the article are completely unreferenced at the moment. It's an early area to focus on, and could be a quick win.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid effort, but the lead section needs to be a far longer summary - about 4-5 paragraphs summarizing the article. A lot more links and citations need adding - apart from people & places, terms like Diocletian window and egg and dart all have articles. The usual end sections are: Notes, References (the books the notes come from), Further reading. The pictures on both sides will squash the text for people with smaller screens; using mini-galleries (see Medieval art for example) is one solution. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to the first 2 sections - the rest need doing. Also some queries on the talk page. Capitalization is generally rather excessive "the Library..." , "her Bedchamber" , "sweet Chestnut" (either 2 or 0, 0 is better). I'm really not sure about all the "the Villa"-ing, & a decision is needed to use house or villa consistently, or spell out a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations. GiacomoReturned drew my attention to this article here, but I need to say up front that "I know nothing" about architecture. What I do know a little about though is writing, so my comments are focused on that aspect of the article.

It's very obvious that the author knows a great deal about this subject, but paradoxically that can be almost an impediment. Some things that are self-evident to him are required to be cited in the wikipedia world, and consequently the article is way under-cited to stand any chance at any of the review processes like GA or FA. That doesn't make the article "bad" in any way though, obviously. I tend to avoid articles on subjects that I have any great knowledge for exactly that reason. Bizarre I know.
There are way too many images. Most should be moved over to Commons and a link provided.
There's a rather strange use of quotation marks that I can't quite understand. For instance, "These higher 'Chivalric and Historic' orders met in 'encampments' rather than lodges and were predominately Christian in their outlook and composition." If "Chivalric and Historic" and "encampments" are actual quotations, then who is being quoted? What meaning is the punctuation meant to convey?
"Four depictions of The Green Man, pagan god of the oak and symbol of rebirth and resurrection, can be viewed carved into the marble fireplaces." Is that really a link to the right Green Man?
The lead is of course far too short, as others have said.
I'm really unhappy with the References section mixing up notes and citations.
The sheer scale of the Further reading section raises the obvious question; why were so many of these sources ignored in the construction of this article?

Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalrick, could you rewrite this phrase ".......a large table by William Kent which contained many designs by architects such as Andrea Palladio, Inigo Jones, John Webb and Vincenzo Scamozzi, which were ready for inspection." I'm not sure what you are saying there. I am also just wondering if the page does not contain a little too much emphasis on the Freemasony and Jacobite theories, by all means mention them (fully referenced), but I can't help getting the feeling that they are being hammered home a little too heavily. Giacomo Returned 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and re-read the page, I think this section "Alternative interpretations for the use of the Villa" needs be taken away to a page of its own (and linked in the "see also" section) and take all the Masonic and Jacobite theories with it. They are not convincing me at all and furthermore they are detracting from the architectural and factual history of the house - as one who has studied Palladio in depth and 17th and 18th century social history, I could drive a coach and horses through some of the assertions supporting theories there, so if I can, I know some of our other editors will too - this is an encyclopedia not a debating chamber. I strongly doubt the page can get through FAC with all of that there - it's all just too theoretical and tenuous to be encyclopedic. sorry. Giacomo Returned 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree there. It is mostly at the end of a long article, and while controversial, is not the usual fringe stuff, but comes from a scholarly background. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero[edit]

Since I only feel qualified to look over sourcing and files, that is all I have done. I looked quickly over the sourcing and it all looks great. The quotes make fact checking easy for other reviews and such. What style of sourcing in particular are you using? As for files, the article looks a bit cluttered right now with so many images. I am not sure how much this is going be expanded but, removing a few may improve readability. ~~After lab tomorrow, I will look over all the images for the copyright formalities.~~ I hope this helps. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few file pages that you may run into a issue with:

The biggest thing is that they list the author as you. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Lead needs considerable expansion to effectively summarixe the article
Relationship between Villa and Gardens, Upper Tribune (or Domed Hall), Green Velvet Room, Lady Burlington's Bedchamber and Closet, Lower Tribune, Lower Link, Later developments.., Important visitors... sections are completely unreferenced.
Most mid sections need ref improving.
A lot of work needs to be written about the cultural heritage and listed building developments in the 20th century in the bottom section. Sources seem to reveal it has been subject to archaeological digs which aren't mentioned. This is covered in just a few lines, it needs some solid paragraphs so it seems balanced and infitting with the rest of the articles..
Any objections to a pin map in infobox? I can request a quality one of the actual borough with a london window locator which would look decent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to go through this and add citation needed tags on sentences and pargraphs which require sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I am sure Chivalrick1 (who does not seem to be here very much) would be delighted for you (with your experience) to steer his ship through FAC and allow it to obtain the high rating he desires and the page deserves. Giacomo Returned 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GA would clearly be possible right now, it has FA potential eventually, but needs a LOT of work. Lets try to get it to GA first then. I just made a map showing surroundings but it could use a Greater London locator in the infobox given that at the moment no borough locator exists. I'm not sure though UK property infobox has that option. Any objections to swapping it with Template:Infobox building, no parameters would be lost as far as I'm aware.. London locator pin features on File:Greater London UK location map 2.svg. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind what you do. I have only been one of several copyeditors over the last few days responding to the request for peer review. You do whatever you think best. Someone should, I suppose, find out if Chivalrick1 is happy with things so far, I have been rather drastic in my removal of images and text unconnected directly to the page. Giacomo Returned 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I just saw the references. Not good. Its barely got any actual reference which is verifiable and no page numbers from the books or papers.. Its mostly long notes which are not actual references... The information of course if from any book or magazine given in the bibliography needs the exact page numbers and authors in the notes/references, just listing them isn't adequate of course.... What I can do is add citation tags to all those which needs it and in the coming days try to find as many verifiable sources as possible but the principal author will need to replace/modify the notes with proper sources and will require a lot of effort in scouting for sources... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think best..... Giacomo Returned 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. When I saw the long notes I thought they were quotations from the source used. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a complete overhaul in the next few days. I've only reached around 1800 in the history at the moment, more to add form several sources I found. You can kind of see where its headed with structure and sourcing and what I've edited/written so far. I'll replace those notes which proper sources soon enough. No major rush though, I'll work on this gradually over the next month, it doe shave potential to be at least GA and the amount of potential sources is astounding, which means even more so that time must be taken with research to ensure it is really comprehensive..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI he replied here about why he has been away. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chivalrick1[edit]

Thanks guys are looking at this and making edits. I will find the exact references needed over the next few days. I have all the books on the bibliography either in my library at home or at work (Chiswick House). But please keep me in the loop as I spent a vast amount of time expanding this entry and taking photographs to make it a worthy entry for this iconic piece of architecture Chivalrick1 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivalrick1 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]