Talk:Heller House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
Good article Heller House has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 29, 2007.
December 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Sources

More to come, hopefully. IvoShandor 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of Chicago Landmarks site

I want to bring into question the accuracy of the official Chicago Landmarks site on such items as date of designation. A Chicago Tribune article dated February 7, 1960 indicated that the Heller House was designated a Chicago Landmark long before the date claimed by the official website of September 15, 1971. I would lean toward the Trib's date, as there is no indication that the government site has been vetted for accuracy. IvoShandor 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a difference between a Chicago Landmark and a Chicago Architectural Landmark? The Trib using both terms interchangeably, HABS says it became a Chicago Architectural Landmark in 1961. Thoughts? IvoShandor 06:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt a difference in the designations. I am not sure if the Architectural designation is still granted. I noticed this walking by the Auditorium Theatre some time ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
City of Chicago sources are not error free, to put it mildly. A similar discrepancy exists for the nearby K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple. Speciate 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The city Landmark cite is pretty accurate and the confusion lies in another designation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

Hi, first note that I am not a seasoned GA reviewer--however, I nominated an article for GA and saw that it was requested that those who nominate an article then review one, which I am doing. So, if you disagree with my remarks feel free to consult a second opinion (you won't hurt my feelings...) Anyway...

I have placed this article on hold for 7 days in order that the following points be addressed. If rectified, the article will pass.

Generally, the article is well done and I commend all of the work that went into it, especially a lot of the research which is in-depth and descriptive (and I imagine took a significant amount of time). Lazulilasher

The Review:

  • It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct:
A good, thorough copy editing could add much to the overall readability. For example, I fixed this one:it marked his move away revival styles that were popular and into an era of geometric, highly modern designs.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the technical jargon needs to be explained, e.g. quatrefoil, cantilevered (see jargon) and context describing significance of building/change in architectural style should be added.
I am not the technical jargon guy and the person who was was booted from WP some time ago.--TonyTheTiger
Ya, I noticed that when I tried to put a link to the review on his talk page...huh...didn't even know that could happen. Anyway, I'll see if I can find some info on it tonight in order to give it some more background and get this article through.Lazulilasher (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
YesY done. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Second, please add a further reading/external links sectionYesY from above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Third, please add more text to the lead section in order to more fully explain the significance of the structure. See Wikipedia:LEAD YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
    (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout: There is a citation needed tag at the end of the history section.
    (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources:
    (c) contains no original research. No problems here.
  • It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
    (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic:
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
The history section portion on the owners needs to be streamlined.
Yep...no NPOV problems.
  • It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war.
  • It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.
If possible, please provide other images.
YesY Added 1 Frank L Wright image Lazulilasher (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

and

Comments:

  • There is still a citation needed tag at the end of the history section.
I've done that. --andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) YesY Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the history information is overly detailed for this article. For example, the paragraph which describes the ten owners since 2004 could be streamlined into a more compact, scintillating, and concise paragraph. YesY compacted, some deletes of family info.Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • In other words, the architecture and significance sections need expanding.
Have streamlined, and have added as much as I could find. --andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) YesY Good work!!!! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The prose style is rather choppy, although it is not too bad it does need to be smoothed out.
I have gone through the whole article and have smoothed out lots of 'choppy' stuff.--andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • On the other side of the coin, I would like to read more about the architecture/significance sections as they are of prime importance to the topic. Also, perhaps give some context as to what such terms as "cantilevered entry lintel" mean and also what significance such items like "Prairie homes" have.
They are now Wiki-linked --andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Good work, again, thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there anymore images available--considering this is a highly visual subject, they would aid the reader significantly.
I have added a link to a web page showing photos of Wright's houses--andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Lake

Which Silver Lake does the article refer to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My point as well. Maybe a town near Chicago. --andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I have gone through almost all of this article and have re-arranged things, added references, fixed some links and corrected grammar. I have not done everything, but nobody's perfect... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, pass. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass.
2. Factually accurate?: Well documented and sourced. Pass.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article is as thorough as the subject demands. No omission of any major facet of the topic. Pass.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yep, no problems here. Pass.
5. Article stability? Very. Pass.
6. Images?: Good, but this could be improved. Pass.

This article has seen some improvement in the past few days, most notably from TonyTheTiger and Andreasegde. It definitely now passes as a Good Article under all criteria, as it 1.) does not skip over any significant details 2.) is informative 3.) no copyright vios and 4.) NPOV. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Lazulilasher (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank Lazulilasher for the review, and also thank him/her for not only reviewing the article, but working on it as well. This is not common, and deserves a special thank you for that. --andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roof renovations, cite needed

I am just removing this bit of information. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, it has to be verifiable from a published source. Per wiki policies on original research, and verifiability, I am removing this. IvoShandor (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)