Talk:Edward R. Hills House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

National Register of Historic Places WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Illinois (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Chicago      (Rated Start-Class) Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Architecture WikiProject (Rated start-Class) Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward R. Hills House article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

A fact from Edward R. Hills House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 June 2007.

Edward R. Hills House was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 9, 2007

[edit] GAReview

Oh well, since I stated I "review" articles in a GA discussion, I think I should get back to doing so. I don't know if starting with an article on the topic and nominated by this user would be the most appropriate, but we'll see how it works out...

I guess I will need to put the article on hold. In general, it looks very promising, and I believe that the major contributor would be willing to swiftly address any concerns voiced. Here they come:

• While the house gained notability mainly due to Wright's remodelling of it, I guess the lead should follow the usual norm for encyclopedic articles. I.e., I'd start with:

The Edward R. Hills House, also known as the Hills-DeCaro House, is a house in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, most notable for being remodelled by Frank Lloyd Wright in his signature Prairie style.

Then a short roundup of the history of the house should follow (1-2 sentences) and of its architectural significance (1-2 again), but in all I believe the lead could be limited to one paragraph for such a short article, albeit with ample subsections.

OTOH, for what I can infer from the article, it is only the currently-standing structure that is the Edward R. Hills House, and the "remodel" was actually tearing down an old house and erecting a completely new building. I believe the current description is ambigious with regard to that, at least I am not sure what happened (surprisingly to myself, I am not familiar with this particular Wright design). If what I am saying is the case, the article should be written like that, only mentioning in the history of the building that there was an earlier structure on the plot. If something else - the article should state it in a less ambigious way.

OK, now some questions I couldn't find answers for, and the article leaves me wondering - you can alleviate that either by adding missing info or rephrasing so that those details go out of sight:

1. Who was William Gray?
2. Was he the owner of the previous house, or did he just buy it for his daughter?
3. What is a sander? (OK, I know, but the readers may not - wikilink recommended)?
4. OK, we are in 1976 and only now I get to learn that Hills did some changes to the building. Please sort out the chronology and provide some insight into the nature of changes.
5. I know I said that those would be questions, but this one isn't - "stick style" needs not be written with a capital letter
6. To hell with questions - the fact that the house is on the Forest Avenue could be mentioned in some other place in the article, even in the lead section (I am still in favor of including addresses, wherever available, in infoboxes)
7. While you describe many features of the house, it is hard to get an idea about the size of the house, the plan (rectangular? square), the floor plans (how many rooms? what is on which floor?) and in general, given that there are photos available, this section is hardly involving for the reader (I know I said it many times encyclopedias can be boring, but I guess we can still present encyclopedic facts in an interesting manner whenever possible).
8. The first paragraph in the significance section should come as second, and is a mess - I do not get the impression of a logical flow.
9. OK, so we can learn something about the interior, but only at the end of the article...

Now after going through the article a few times, I have some structuring suggestions. I'd do away with the "history" section and align the article in a somewhat chronological manner. I'd start with the "origins", then describe the "architecture" (I guess it would make more sense to discuss how given features relate to Wright's styles and other works here to help give readers some context), then "fire and restoration" (Hills' changes to the house should be included somewhere in either of those two sections).

On reading the "significance" section again, I believe that the fact that the house is a part of the historic district and was declared a Chicago landmark can be dealt with in the lead section (to highlight why it is notable), and the rest are not that relevant (when the district joined the National Register pertains to the district, not the house, and what houses Wright remodelled, rather than designed from scratch is a bit trivial to me - it is important that it was his area of activity). And, as I said, the description of the relations between the house's features and Wright's style development and other works would better be integrated in the architecture section.

I hope you will find time to work on this article while I put it on hold for a week. Once you're ready, I'd gladly get down to checking the references and other stuff that's left to completing the review. I am looking forward to promoting the article :D PrinceGloria 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just started a new job and won't have time to address these concerns. Please simply fail the article. Thanks. IvoShandor 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for the quick reply! I am sorry to hear your contributions to Wikipedia will be limited, as I understand... My job is demanding too, but I might get back to the article and try to implement my proposed changes, but can't promise anything. Cheers, PrinceGloria 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will work on it where I can as well. It will be renommed in the future. :) IvoShandor 05:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)