Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Architecture of Denmark/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Architecture of Denmark

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article contains multiple unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. It also does not contain much information from 2012-present. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept these shortcomings but find that overall the article still presents an informative, well-illustrated overview of the history of Danish architecture, Further to the discussions on my talk page, in collaboration with Ramblersen2 I will try to add missing in-line references and update the section on "Contemporary period".--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720: I think we have completed work on updating this article and adding in-line references throughout. I am not too sure of the reassessment process but if you are happy with the present quality of the article, perhaps you can withdraw your request. Otherwise we'll just have to wait for wider approval.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: This article needs a copyedit. Upon a quick skim, I found numerous grammatical mistakes, particularly with full stops used in the middle of lists instead of commas. Can someone do a complete copyedit of the article to fix these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also numerous sources listed in "Further reading": can these be used as inline citations, or should they be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Z1720, for expressing further concerns. I'm afraid I could not find numerous grammatical errors in the body of the text but in accordance with your suggestion, I have "conducted a complete copy edit" which has resulted in one or two minor changes. As for "Further reading", I agree some of the items needed to be deleted. It would, however, not be easy to include those remaining as inline references without acquiring the works and identifying relevant page numbers. Those which have been maintained identify professionally prepared works in line with Wikipedia:Further reading. I have added ISBN references to the others to facilitate identification. I have also deleted one of the items in "External links" as it was no longer accessible. In my opinion, the other two should be maintained. If you can identify any other shortcomings, please let me know. Thanks to your interest, substantial improvements have now been made to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were many comments that I felt were outside of NPOV. I have posted most of them below:

  • "The houses are deemed to be among the most sophisticated dwellings of their time." Can being sophisticated be measured? If not, who has deemed this architecture significant?
  • "Among the finest examples of brick Romanesque buildings" How can something be the finest example? What makes something "fine"? Is there a better, more objective adjective that can be used?
  • "In Copenhagen, Rosenborg Castle (1606–24) and Børsen or the former stock exchange (1640) are perhaps the city's most remarkable Renaissance buildings." What makes a building remarkable? How is this measured, or if it is an opinionated statement, who is stating this?
  • "It is widely recognized as one of Europe's most outstanding Renaissance castles" Who has recognised it in this way?
  • "Particularly impressive is the Church of the Trinity (1618–28) designed by Flemish-Danish architect Lorenz van Steenwinckel. It is said to be Scandinavia's finest example of a Renaissance church." Why is it impressive? Who said it is Scandinavia's finest example of a Renaissance church?

I stopped at the middle of Renaissance, but based on what I read I think there are a lot of opinionated statements written in Wikivoice that need to be better defined or attributed in the text to experts. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: I must say I am becoming increasingly confused about the reassessment process. I fail to see why we should undertake a complete reassessment of the article, including passages which were considered acceptable in the original GA assessment. Apart from your own views, did anyone else support reassessment of the article? And how can the current status of the article be supported?--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: One editor is allowed to initiate the reassessment process, and any editor may post their thoughts about the article during the reassessment. Editors can also disagree with the original assessment, as I have apparently done here; initiating a reassessment is one way to have those concerns addressed. The good article criteria and various Wikipedia policies/guidelines have changed and been better defined since this article passed its GAN (as an example, a couple weeks ago WP:LEAD changed their requirements away from having leads be a maximum of 4 paragraphs, and now allow more leeway.) I look at an article's adherence to the GA criteria as written in 2024 and post comments when I notice them, which is not always on the first readthrough. If editors disagree with my comments, I am happy to discuss. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Z1720, for explaining your understanding of the process. As you can see, I've been trying to help things along but am still rather confused. If you believe the article should be officially reassessed, should it not first lose its GA status? It could then be renominated for a new GA review and an independent reviewer could then go through the normal assessment requirements. Some of your recent comments in regard to NPOV are certainly worth attention and I have attempted to tone down some of the assertions. Nevertheless, much of the emphasis is in fact supported by reliable independent sources (including Unesco), not to mention those behind the corresponding linked articles. In your call for the opinions of "experts", as far as I can see, all we can do is to base the presentation on reliable independent sources. As you say, your list of new problems runs only to the middle of Renaissance. If you are acting as the new reviewer, I suppose you will now be able to continue with comments on the remainder of the article. As far as I can see, this could continue for some time without any progress on "result pending". If others could be involved in the re-assessment or in further improving the article the process could no doubt be completed a reasonable time. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, AirshipJungleman29 for stepping in. In relation to this reassessment, I began by looking at the GAR page you mention and spent considerable time and effort on dealing with the issues originally raised. I believe it would then have been in order to close the discussion but we now have two instances where additional problems have been raised. As I have sought to work cooperatively on the points raised and have tried to deal with them within the article, I'm not sure whether it is now up to me to close the discussion. I'll hang around for another week or so but would be glad to see these matters resolved so that I can spend more time on other priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: I never feel comfortable closing GARs I opened because I consider myself involved. I also don't feel a GAR should be closed when only the original concerns were addressed. Instead, I think a GAR should be closed if the person closing the GAR thinks that it meets the GA criteria. I also do not do a deep dive into the GA in an initial review: most GARs get no additional comments and never read by other editors, so doing this would be an immense undertaking that could be spent reviewing or improving other articles. When someone steps forward to improve the article, I give additional comments, like I have done here. I have given reasons for why I think this article might not meet the criteria, and I will leave it to others to decide whether the concerns are valid, and this should stay open for improvements, or if the article meets the criteria and this GAR can be closed. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading between the lines, Z1720, it looks as if you do not believe the improvements made to the article meet the concerns you expressed. It therefore looks to me as if the slot could remain open interminably. Unless further recommendations for improvement are expressed, I do not intend to carry our further work on the article although I will look at the talk page from time to time to see if there have been any additions. I know only too well that comparisons with similar articles are frowned upon but I thought I would nevertheless point out that I have looked carefully through the other articles addressed in the "Architecture of Europe" template at the foot of the article. Apart from Architecture of Finland (basically a one-man job), they all seem to be of a much lower standard. The GA status of Architecture of Denmark therefore still appears to me to be well deserved, especially as the article has now been extensively updated. I think Ramblersen2 may also be interested in monitoring progress as he has not only helped out here but as Ramblersen was a major contributor to the 2009 GA review.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Architecture_of_Denmark/1&oldid=1246493335"