User talk:SouthernLatitude

Hello, Cwarchitecture, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article (or draft of an article) about yourself. Writing about yourself is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians.

As this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. We require individuals to meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person to accept articles about them. A page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to or change it, please propose the changes on its talk page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

One of the sources is 404, which just leaves 2 passing references. Under the WP:GOLDENRULE we are looking for 3 profiles of the person's life / career in independent reliable media, in order to show notability. Some language here is somewhat promotional, but that isn't the reason for the decline.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Charles Wright (architect) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

ChrysGalley (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the earlier review and guidance.

The draft has now been substantially expanded to address the points raised, including the addition of multiple independent sources and editorial coverage (ArchitectureAU profiles, Australian Design Review features, and other architectural publications).

The draft has now been resubmitted for review.

A request has also been submitted to change my username to something more neutral (SouthernLatitude), which is currently awaiting approval.

Many thanks again for the helpful feedback.

Cwarchitecture (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernLatitude - thanks for the various improvements made. It still needs some work on it. The core to an article is the WP:GOLDENRULE. If you have 3 such examples and simply summarise those three in a neutral, accurate way, that is all you need for an article. As an encyclopedia we are a summary of existing sources. Having lots of mini-references doesn't help (and this is by no means a bad example, some artists give us 200 sources to wade through). Now I've not been through all the sources, but I suspect you are OK here, overall, but it's getting a bit lost in the weeds. So source two, ArchitectureAU, that's great, definitely one of the three. The Stamp House piece too. The first source? That's interview led, with some editorial. The editorial can be used, but it's not really significant coverage. Is there significant coverage of you, not interviews in the other 22 sources? One is a book, is that just a name check or is it more? Does coverage of the awards give background about you or your work? If so, get them towards the front of the text, summarise them. What you have also done is simply name checked, "Architectural critic Patrick Bingham-Hall discussed Wright's work and design approach in an article on Stamp House published in Architecture Australia." Yeah, but what does it say? What's the summary?

If I try to ignore the weird-wankery of the text, my quick summary would be, bullet pointed:

a) CW's work uses innovation and expressive experimentation, drawing on tropical conditions rather than Australian architectural traditions or southern‑state design traditions.

b) CW has strong, singular conceptual ideas, producing buildings with bold forms, mirrored surfaces, exaggerated roofs and inventive reworkings of architectural precedents.

c) CW likes concrete, massing and structural resilience.

d) Stamp House shows his approach: a highly site‑specific, monumental, experimental structure designed as a topographical intervention and as a prototype for tropical living rather than any old building.

I did a) to d) in a rush and knowing little of the subject matter (whilst groaning at the Aussie massacre of the English language), but if you imagine doing that to source two, and one other, then that's all you really need, everything else is a bonus. You don't have to agree with what they say, which explains why doing an article on yourself is extra hard, I can rush a) to d), but I suspect you cannot.

More specifics:

a) Early life / education needs sourcing, doesn't have to be significant coverage. If it can't be found (yet) leave it out, at least for now. If it's referenced in the sources then just put a reference at the end of the paragraph.

b) Up to you, but I would consider merging Works and Awards to make the self promotion slightly less obvious. But if not, I would bullet point the awards like you did with work.

c) I would consider dropping publications / media coverage, it's just your laundry list of name checks, just get that in by summarising. On the other hand if the books have more than a sentence or two about you, list those in a "Further reading" section, with them listed without comment.

d) On the other hand I would suggest you have a Notable works section, and select two or three designs, clearly Stamp House is one, and just give a sourced paragraph on each. See the Melbourne Hospital paragraph in John James Clark (admittedly unsourced), so facts and figures led, just a tight little paragraph. Then "Other selected works" below that based on what you have already drafted.

Oh, and good luck with this! 10:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ChrysGalley (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chris — thanks again for the very thoughtful and constructive feedback on the draft. Your comments about focusing the article around the WP were extremely helpful in clarifying how the material should be structured, and I’ve now substantially revised the draft and resubmitted it with that advice in mind.

In particular I tried to follow your suggestion of grounding the article around a small number of sources that provide significant coverage and summarising what those sources actually say, rather than relying on a large number of minor references.

The revised draft now centres primarily on four sources that contain editorial discussion of the work:

• the ArchitectureAU profile on Charles Wright and the development of the practice

• the Australian Design Review feature discussing the operation of the practice in regional northern Australia

• the Architecture Australia article by Patrick Bingham-Hall analysing the Stamp House project and Wright’s design approach

• Patrick Bingham-Hall’s book The Iconic Tropical House (Thames & Hudson), which situates Wright’s projects within a broader discussion of contemporary tropical residential architecture

The “Architectural approach and critical reception” section has been rewritten so that these sources are summarised directly in the text rather than simply cited. I’ve tried to extract the key ideas discussed in those sources — for example the emphasis on climatic responsiveness in tropical conditions, the use of expressive structural systems, and the development of bold conceptual building forms — and present them as neutral summaries of the published commentary.

Following your suggestion regarding notable projects, the draft now focuses on a small number of buildings that have independent coverage. Stamp House is discussed in more detail based on Bingham-Hall’s analysis, and additional sourced summaries have been included for projects such as the Cairns Botanic Gardens Visitor Centre, Glass House, the Trinity Anglican School Science Building and Engineering and Innovation Place at James Cook University. In each case the intention was to summarise the commentary from the architectural publications rather than simply list projects.

I also addressed the other points you raised:

• Early life and education now includes a source (the ArchitectureAU profile).

• The earlier “publications/media coverage” style material has been removed in favour of summarising what the sources actually say.

• Awards are referenced within the project descriptions rather than presented as a standalone list.

• The project sections have been tightened so they are primarily based on the commentary in the cited sources.

Hopefully the revised version now reflects the approach you outlined — essentially building the article around a small number of sources with significant coverage and summarising them clearly rather than relying on a large collection of minor references.

Thanks again for taking the time to provide such detailed guidance — it was very helpful in reshaping the draft. SouthernLatitude (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that @SouthernLatitude. I have put it under review, but I will do that this afternoon (UK time) when I've got the time. From a quick glance it makes a more interesting read. Some sections are a bit long, it's supposed to be a summary, but that's usually easy to resolve. I'll let you know after I've done a proper review. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernLatitude. So as you can see I've made some changes, let me take you through them. The version you submitted is still available to see, by clicking on the time/date stamp on the History tab. I have not done the last two projects yet, so Trinity Anglican and James Cook I will do tomorrow, but you can see what I've done to the other three projects.

1) You appear to have used LLM / AI for much of the text - there were a lot of typical LLM mistakes and wording. I've done my best to get rid of it, but LLM usage is banned in draft articles, so that draft in the original form couldn't go into mainspace. It took some effort to deal with it, and that's the problem with LLM - it seems to save time, looks good, but it doesn't and it isn't, but then passes the problem on to someone else.

2) I took out the second paragraph, it is all mentioned below, so it was just LLM repetition as far as I could tell. Instead I mentioned what looks to be your 2 most notable projects, which handily allowed me to ensure those references were on top of the list.

3) I was OK with the lead, Early Life, Career and Practice sections. I made a few minor changes.

4) I filled out the first few citations. It really helps readers to understand what they are looking at. It would be good if the other items are also fully cited, I use https://citer.toolforge.org/ for this, though the results are sometimes flakey. But that can wait, it's not a mandatory requirement.

5) Do you have a page number(s) from Iconic Tropical House with the biggest reference?

All being well it should be OK for mainspace in the next day or so. But by all means give any reactions you have. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks again for taking the time to work through the draft and for the edits.

Just to clarify the Bingham-Hall Iconic Tropical House reference: Wright’s work is discussed in several parts. The introductory essay “There’s Nothing New Under the Sun” (pp. 10–17) discusses contemporary tropical architecture and references Wright’s work, there is further contextual discussion in the essay “Tropical Expression” (pp. 132–137), and the Stamp House project is extensively featured on pp. 138–143 where the text discusses Wright’s design approach and the project as an example of contemporary tropical architecture.

Thanks again for the guidance on shaping the draft around the main sources, it’s been very helpful. SouthernLatitude (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much @SouthernLatitude - I have now added the main page number in. Despite being published in London a year ago, it's still not been added to the British Library, so I can't easily check that source. I've also finished the other two works sections, so I'm more-or-less done, I'm just doing some final checks that the sources are fully supporting the text but hopefully that won't change much.

Can I get you to do three things? First can you check the facts, figures, dates, the hard data aspects - we need to get that accurate if nothing else. Secondly by all means let me know if you're not happy with any of the wording. Finally for JCU the JCU own website mentioned Richard Kirk as well as you - can you just clarify their role? And whether they should get mentioned?

I'm OK to move the draft into mainspace, but once that has happened you are greatly restricted in any further changes due to the Conflict of Interest; whereas at draft stage there are no such restrictions, so by all means say you want some more time before going ahead. Changes can happen, it's just you'd need to get someone like me to agree to them and to make that change, so it may be a reason to not rush this last stage. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks again for the thorough review and for working through the draft.

I’ve checked the facts, dates and project information and everything appears accurate from my side. The only correction I’ve noted is reference 20 - the Architecture Australia article on the Engineering and Innovation Place is by Helen Norrie and dated 23 September 2024 (not 2014).

In relation to the Engineering and Innovation Place at JCU, the project is consistently attributed in awards and publications as “KIRK with i4 Architecture and Charles Wright Architects”. As the sources don’t explicitly define roles between the practices, it would be best to reflect that attribution directly without interpretation.

I’m comfortable with the wording as it stands overall and don’t have any further changes to suggest at this stage. Subject to the above, I’m happy for the draft to move to mainspace once you’ve completed your review.

One small query — would you be comfortable with including a reference to the Phaidon Atlas of Brutalist Architecture in the Stamp House section? It includes the project within the Australasia section, but I’m also happy to leave it out if you’d prefer to keep the focus on the current sources.

Thanks again for your guidance through the process — much appreciated. SouthernLatitude (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The Phaidon book I can check for myself, it's in the library, so I'll look for it on Wednesday morning (assuming it's not been stolen) and I'll let you know. I'll fix the 2014 date / Kirk and then release it. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, much appreciated - sounds good.

I’ll leave it with you, and thanks again for taking the time to check that and finalise everything. SouthernLatitude (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernLatitude - finally published. I thought it would be best to include Phaidon, which I saw today in the National Library of Scotland. An interesting book, clearly too heavy to be stolen. It also itemised a few similar buildings in my area which have not been recognised, so I may use that source to create articles for them. Let me know of any further changes. The Stamp House section has enough sources, notability and context to have its own article, something to bear in mind, however at the moment that would risk draining notability off this new article. But if you get any further coverage for either Stamp House and/or self it may be worth further thought. Would there be merit in getting a photo of each of the main works? This would need to be a photo to which you hold the copyright (e.g. you took the photo). The downside that we have had with other architects is that we need a Creative Commons licence granted by the owner, and architects tends to be wary of that. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Thanks again — and really appreciate the suggestion regarding images, that’s very helpful. I’ll look into sourcing suitable photographs with the appropriate licensing and incorporating these over time.

Many thanks again for all your time and guidance through the process — much appreciated.

Best Regards SouthernLatitude (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Cwarchitecture! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ChrysGalley (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Cwarchitecture", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because the name looks like that of the company/partnership and that isn't permitted under policy. In addition there isn't a COI declared under WP:COI. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)