This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
You have removed architectural commentary on the Brown University Science Library as "unnecesary". I beg to differ. Any article on any building in existence by necessity has mentioned in it anything notable about that building. The context of a 1970s 15-story Brutalist appearing in a mixed residential/commercial set of two-story colonials and shopfronts is absolutely notable, and most importantly, not
original research because of the presence of scholarly published material.
What I have removed is either in violation of
WP:POV or is text quoted directly from a book in the REFERENCES section, when a simple mention of the book will do. ~
Oni Lukosct00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
A simple mention of the book does not convey the book's architectural commentary, which is notable. The purpose of the full block quote in references is the provide the context from which quotes are taken that are used in the article. It is not necessary, but the commentary in the article itself is. It is not a violating of
WP:POV since
"Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
* Who advocates the point of view
* What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
"
is satisfied. The bias of the author is clearly established and presented. It should be included as notable commentary on the subject in question.--
Loodog02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The only quote I saw was in the references section, and the opinion about the architecture was presented in the text in a way that made it not clear whose opinion it was. It is reasonable to put the commentary in if it is clearly marked and cited. ~
Oni Lukosct02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It said, "Architectural historian McKenzie Woodward condemns the building as "overwhelm[ing] everything around it", even comparing it to a Soviet-era Panelák when viewed from its "all-too-many distant viewing perspectives"." The man whose opinion is being offered is at the very start of the sentence with clearly delineated quotes.--
Loodog04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Huh, I guess I didn't finish reading the paragraph because the beginning was so non-NPOV, I just ended up skimming the whole thing. The word "violently" at the beginning really set off some red flag in my head. I kinda still feel like the first half of the paragraph would need to be rewritten if we wanted to put it back (which I can tell you do), seeing as it really shouldn't set off a red flag for an editor who reads it. ~
Oni Lukosct04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I made the changes on all the articles (I was just saying that most of
What links here was from 2 templates). The only files pointing to a redirect are either in User space or in WP 1.0 logs. -
AWeenieMan (
talk)
01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
You have removed architectural commentary on the Brown University Science Library as "unnecesary". I beg to differ. Any article on any building in existence by necessity has mentioned in it anything notable about that building. The context of a 1970s 15-story Brutalist appearing in a mixed residential/commercial set of two-story colonials and shopfronts is absolutely notable, and most importantly, not
original research because of the presence of scholarly published material.
What I have removed is either in violation of
WP:POV or is text quoted directly from a book in the REFERENCES section, when a simple mention of the book will do. ~
Oni Lukosct00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
A simple mention of the book does not convey the book's architectural commentary, which is notable. The purpose of the full block quote in references is the provide the context from which quotes are taken that are used in the article. It is not necessary, but the commentary in the article itself is. It is not a violating of
WP:POV since
"Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
* Who advocates the point of view
* What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
"
is satisfied. The bias of the author is clearly established and presented. It should be included as notable commentary on the subject in question.--
Loodog02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The only quote I saw was in the references section, and the opinion about the architecture was presented in the text in a way that made it not clear whose opinion it was. It is reasonable to put the commentary in if it is clearly marked and cited. ~
Oni Lukosct02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It said, "Architectural historian McKenzie Woodward condemns the building as "overwhelm[ing] everything around it", even comparing it to a Soviet-era Panelák when viewed from its "all-too-many distant viewing perspectives"." The man whose opinion is being offered is at the very start of the sentence with clearly delineated quotes.--
Loodog04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Huh, I guess I didn't finish reading the paragraph because the beginning was so non-NPOV, I just ended up skimming the whole thing. The word "violently" at the beginning really set off some red flag in my head. I kinda still feel like the first half of the paragraph would need to be rewritten if we wanted to put it back (which I can tell you do), seeing as it really shouldn't set off a red flag for an editor who reads it. ~
Oni Lukosct04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I made the changes on all the articles (I was just saying that most of
What links here was from 2 templates). The only files pointing to a redirect are either in User space or in WP 1.0 logs. -
AWeenieMan (
talk)
01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)reply