Talk:Guy Peterson: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation Unassessed This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 29 December 2018 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs). This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Arts and Entertainment Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Architecture C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Florida C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

While adding images to article is often a good thing, adding too many images can be counterproductive per WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. For example, Wikipedia might use a book cover image for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a book, or perhaps as an example of an illustrators work in an article about an illustrator, but the way the two covers are being used in the "Bibliography and media" section seems a bit unnecessary. If the books are Wikipedia notable enough for stand-alone articles to be written about them, then the covers could be used in those article. In this article, however, they seem out of place and are not needed in my opinion.

Same kinda goes for the "Selected work" gallery as well. It would be better to incorporate these into the body of the article near relevant article content and then use a template such a Template:Commons category to let the reader know that more images of this type can be found on Commons. There's really no need for two images of the same building/house or of the same representative style of technique; so, pick the ones for the better known examples discussed in the article, incorporate them into the article and then remove the rest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments on the books. The "Four Florida Moderns" book image was already being used in Wikimedia. Can take or leave them.

As far as gallery of selected work ... it would seem that artists, and architects, are among those who should use 'gallery' more than anyone (as in 'art gallery'). Trying to describe an architects' work without visually showing the evolution of his design through multiple images would be near-impossible. I've always wondered why, if the gallery function exists, people like Frank Lloyd Wright, don't have an extensive gallery of works in their page (except that many of Wright's works have their own pages). So perhaps, 'gallery' really works best for people like Peterson, who have a plethora of works that deserve to be seen, but individually can't justify their own pages. Check out Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. How can you possibly explain that stuff without seeing it in their galleries?? What makes Wikipedia so much better than a book is that you can click on a gallery image and see it in full-monitor-size HD (without the need to navigate to Commons)!! Frankly, I think every significant architect should have image galleries of some type in their articles, they would improve them greatly!! If not for a purpose like this ... then why have 'image galleries' at all?Architecttype (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery seems to work OK here and Wikipedia:Image use policy says…a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot individual images supporting text do the job in this article? I have removed the images with no apparent connection with the subject.SovalValtos (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that or a reduced gallery with subjects not mentioned in the article removed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of brevity, I had removed his awards, which mentioned all of the buildings in the gallery. By reinstituting the list, they are all included. Voila!!Architecttype (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the removal of the gallery and addition of individual images the article now looks a complete mess, the awards section is sprawling and unreferenced, also please note we don't use external links in the body of the article. Also please don't attack other editors and assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the complete inconsistency with which the rules are applied. I'm looking at dozens of other architect articles, none of which receive the attention of this one. Why? Is there some subjective judgment being made somewhere? This guy deserves a gallery, but that guy does not? All we ask is consistency and fairness in the process. Check Max Strang for example. His list is far more ridiculous and sprawling than this one. Not one word or edit, however. Someone has a bone to pick, methinks. Architecttype (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

other crap exists is not a good argument, I have tagged the Max Strang article which is VERY poorly sourced indeed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Willing to work with you. Can all the AIA honors be sourced with one link (i.e. footnotes 34 and 35)? Or must each and every award be footnoted? I can do this, but it will make it a complete mess and double (possibly triple) the size of the reference list. Then the article will likely be criticized for being too long. Ideas?Architecttype (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain we need a giant list of awards, sourced or not, are there some notable ones (ie those that have their own Wikipedia articles) that can be picked out? Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still working in this area (or at least I was). I get it ... "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". I have an interest in these pages being good because the discipline is important to me. To see the work compressed down into insignificance in order to satisfy a hornets nest of wiki-bullies is hardly worth the effort. Watching this process for the first time, it seems to work like this: "This person is worth "X" amount of space, and certainly no photos. We need to shrink it down to no more than three vertical inches" Born. Died. Architect. Architecttype (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]