Talk:Louis Laybourne Smith/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. In general the article is well written and well referenced. I just have a few comments which I will list below. (I may add some more later.) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Lede

• "he formed an interest in engineering and architecture while at the goldfields of Western Australia—which he later realized by undertaking studies in mechanical engineering at the School of Mines while serving an apprenticeship under architect Edward Davies" - wording could be improved - suggest something like > he became interested in engineering and architecture while in the goldfields of Western Australia and later studied mechanical engineering at the School of Mines, serving an apprenticeship under architect Edward Davies. (gets ride of using "while" twice)

• Fixed

• "involved" used twice in lede - need some other word for one of the uses

• Fixed

Rest of article

• "however, it would appear that" - > it appeared (simpler wording)

• Fixed, I think (reworded, at any rate).

• Perhaps there could be a section entitled "Works" with a discussion of his notable works, his architectural style and including the picture gallery.

• I'm working on that now. I'd thought of doing this originally, then didn't, so I'm particularly happy to add it back. He doesn't see to have had a particular architecural style, but several of his buildings were hertiage listed, so I'm grabbing content on them.

• Usually there is a "legacy" or "Influence" section. (Could disperse "Professional activities, associations and awards" into these sections perhaps)

• I'm thinking of keeping Professional activities and associations seperate, as most commentators seem to discuss his time at the School of Minds, his time a Woods Bagot, and his committee work as separate issues. But I certainly agree that Awards can be merged with Legacy to make a better section - Awards were a poor fit where there are now, anyway.

• None of the "References" should contain page numbers.

• Done.

• The date format is inconsistent in the article. The template uses mdy, but in the text you use dmy. Needs to be consistent.

• My fault. :) I didn't realise that the date template had a format parameter. Fixed now. (I feel a tad silly for missing that one)

Overall, the article is very well done. I will put the article on hold while you address these issues.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a particular style or architectural tradition that Louis Laybourne Smith's work followed or was a part?
• Other than jacking up a building to build lower floors, how did his engineering training play a role in his designs?
• You say he was "creative"; in what way?

I would like to know more about his contributions to architectural traditions, that is his legacy. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First, massive thanks for reviewing this. Your suggestions are great - I think it will be a much better article when this is done.

• On whether he followed an architectural tradition: not really, although I'll put something under Works. He did a few buildings in Georgian revival as part of the University of Adelaide, as the firm was responsible for the university's architecture for a while, and they decided on that style. I tend to think of him as Art Deco, but that's just because of the AMP building and the state's National War Memorial. It is more that two of Adelaide's better known Art Deco structures owe something to him (one in full and one in part) than a case of a style that he generally employed. He also sneaks in some Gothic Revival here and there, and more general "Classical" influences which may well be Bagot's influence. As an aside, I've heard mention of some very "modern" work that he did, but the sources I have don't discuss it, so it has to sit out for now.
• In regard to engineering, the only other building which the sources mention is the AMP building. I'll see what I can do to expand that section - it is heritage listed partly because of the engineering features (air conditiing, integrated, centrally controlled shitters, and so on). Although I think I can bring in Balfours as well, so I'll see what I can do. :)
• I'm not sure about the creativity. I'm just quoting Page there - Page argued that Laybourne-Smith was the creative/innovative side, but by this I gather he means in engineering terms. I read that to mean that any innovative engineering solutions were Laybourne-Smith's, but the classical styling was Bagot's role.
• Finally, most of his contributions seem to have been political and in education. I like to think of him as a "working" architect, who didn't make much that was exciting, but made a lot that was good and solid. :) However, he was a major political force in Australian architecture, and the architectural school dramatically changed architure in South Australia. :)

- Bilby (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I've managed to do the "Works" section ok. In the end I could only mention two "engineering" projects, as it was unclear from the soruce whether or not Laybourne Smith was responsible to the core design of the Balfours Cafe. That aside, I've broken it into two sections, moved the comments that were in the gallery into the body, and general tried to talk more about his "traditionalist" approach. - Bilby (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the section on influences now - the first version was a tad iffy, but the current one looks better to me. Although, based on the copyediting you've been kindly doing, I suspect that you're well aware of this. :) I don't think I could say much more without venturing into OR, though, as that's almost everything I can find in the sources (they tend to be a tad dry, and don't really venture into this aspect, although Page can be colourful). - Bilby (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think what you have added it good. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the subject in context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Definitely a good article. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)