Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has got a lot of good sources. It was made by a user with a lot of Ga experience. (User:Doug Coldwell). It has a picture. etc.Sahaib3005 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, this clearly does not meet GA requirements: there are many unsourced statements, as well as short and floating paragraphs. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:, ok. I have removed it’s GA status. Maybe in the future. I still think it is better than start class (which it is currently assessed as).Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: "Better than start class" =/= GA. That's the easy one. The other thing is that you say I have removed it’s GA status. Maybe in the future. This is a confusing statement. You can complete a proper GA review to help the nominator improve issues and get it to GA class now. A GA review is not a simple "yes" or "no", which you seem to be treating them as. Please read the GA criteria and instructions that are already linked on the right side of this page to help reviewers. Kingsif (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And "better then start class" would mean taking a look at the various classes on WP:ASSESS - maybe the article could be assessed as C-Class, as in "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. ..." Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear from the comments above that this was nominated prematurely, as happens sometimes with this nominator. I'm closing this nomination as unsuccessful, and hope it will receive the attention it needs prior to any subsequent nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from the retired electrician[edit]

I apologize for not being able to do a proper review quickly (harvest season). The Kahn-Soviet affair has been the subject of so much recent research (mostly in Russian and some German) that it takes quite some time to get around... Some brief notes:

Lead: "He was the only consulting architect on Soviet industrial construction" - perhaps it is correct for a very narrow definition of consultancy, but it just sounds strikingly incorrect. Around the same time as Kahn, or even earlier, the Soviets employed hundreds of foreign architects. Best known is Erich Mendelsohn with his Red Banner Textile Factory, but he was just one of them. Then there was the large firm run by Ernst May - smaller than Kahn's but otherwise very similar. And the Hannes Meyer firm, and more.
Kahn's first contract with the Soviets was not to "to design the Stalingrad Tractor Plant". It was much narrower in scope - to produce working documentation for the construction of principal (not all) factory halls. Their layout had been already predetermined; shop floor design and manufacturing flow were handled by other American firms. After this, Kahn received a larger contract for the Chelyabinsk tractor plant, with a wider scope, and only after Chelyabinsk he became the master designer for the Soviet industry. Although, again, he wasn't the only one in this role.
Kahn stood out above his foreign peers and competitors because his firm had the unique ability to produce the designs in record time. In the US, his 400-men firm produced a complete new factory design in one week. Ernst May did fast-track designs in the same fashion, but Kahn had far more resources to handle many concurrent projects.
The number 521 is just one estimate; there is also a number of 571 although this may be an old typo that began a life of its own [1].
Are there any American sources on the architecture of Kahn (artistic side rather than factory design)? Retired electrician (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired electrician: Thanks for making the commitment of reviewing this article. I will keep a Watch on it and when you furnish a Report for suggestions to improve the article based on the Six Good Article Criteria I will respond to the issues, so that I can get the article promoted to Good Article status.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"to train and supervise Soviet architects and engineers ... They trained more than 4,000 Soviet architects and engineers" - awkward proximity of two statements makes an impression that the 4000 were a direct and intended contractual outcome. They were not. Kahn never subscribed to train thousands - merely the staff that was necessary to run his business. But the Soviets cheated, and started replacing/removing trainees when they were deemed trained enough. They literally came and went in droves. Kahn's published correspondence shows that he wasn't aware of the trick, and wasn't exactly happy about it. Retired electrician (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a former architecture student[edit]

My impression based upon reading the article (and not contradicted by my knowledge of the subject) is that Kahn as an architect he was a very good engineer and businessman during an era of great creativity. Perhaps this impression could be remedied by more in-depth sources:

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]