Talk:Taliesin (studio)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be starting the review and post it in the next couple of days.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

The article is well-written and interesting. It provides quite a lot of background about Wright's heritage, history, and events that occurred at Taliesin over his lifetime. It is well cited with reliable, verifiable sources. It generally follows Manual of Style guidelines for layout, sections, words to watch and lists. There are a couple of suggestions below regarding the sections and layout. There is no evidence of original research.

It is certainly broad in its coverage, but there are places in which there is more detail provided than is needed, particularly where there are links to background information in other articles. The article is written with a neutral point of view and is stable. There is good use of images in the public domain. The article seems to be well-paraphrased from the source material.

It looks better now that Taliesin I, II and III are not in bold - and the summary is clear about the estate property + history of the three Taliesin residence/studios. Looks good.

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject[edit]

It might be helpful to clarify the subject of the article and the title. The title gives the impression that the article is about Wright's studio, which was just one part of Taliesin III / Taliesin East, which encompasses multiple historic properties that make up the Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places listing. Is the intention to cover the landmark? Or, just the Taliesin III building on the site?

To be clear, though, the article title is not a criteria for the GA review. I am bringing this up just to help hone in on the subject and focus of the article. To be clearer, I suggest remaining it, perhaps to Taliesin East since it's been called that since 1937.

The subject of the article is clearer.-- Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name, I saw your comment about Taliesin East not necessarily being the best option. What about Taliesin (Spring Green, Wisconsin) - similar to the way it's identified for the World Heritage Site. Other than Taliesin East, I cannot think of any better options that would also distinguish it from Taliesin West.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sections and background[edit]

In general, it seems like there's a lot of background information -- Wright's marriage, the killings, etc. What I'm thinking is it would be helpful to have a clear break-out of 1) history, 2) subject (Taliesin East / Taliesin III?) and 3) what has happened to the property since Wright's death in chronological order would be helpful. And, perhaps summarize some of the information, like the section about Wright, that can be found in his article.

The NRHP nomination form does a good job of describing the property and honing in on Taliesin III house/building, for instance. (I had to download it to view it.)

If you want help with this, let me know... I do a lot of clean-up of old articles and am happy to take this on if you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better! And, I get your points about needing the background history. The portion of the article following Wright's death is much clearer now. Just a couple of things:

It seems that history starts with "The valley, approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 km) south of the village of Spring Green, Wisconsin,[5] was originally originally settled by Frank Lloyd Wright's maternal grandfather, Richard Lloyd Jones" in the second paragraph of Location.
Perhaps the last paragraph of "Location" about Wright naming the property Taliesin would be better suited under the Early history about Wright or the first Taliesin section.
Regarding the "the fellowship sold a surrounding piece of land to a developer associated with the company, intending to develop a tourist complex.[60] The 3,000-acre (1,200 ha) resort included an eighteen hole golf course, restaurant, and a visitor's center.[61]" is included in the Taliesin historic property. Based on the wording, I would guess it's not included - and no change is needed. Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Rather than starting a list of minor edits, I just went ahead and made them (e.g., set out to rebuild-->rebuilt) as I went along. See what you think, though, about whether the edits are helpful or not. I meant to save time for both of us, not exclude you.

I got a little thrown trying to find the NRHP list for Taliesin, because I was searching on Sauk County from the Spring Green, Wisconsin article, but I found it in Iowa County. I wonder if we should add that it's in Iowa County to the intro and/or location. Do you know if the property is on the border of Iowa and Sauk counties?

I saw your comment below and addition of the county to the article. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found the nomination form, so I'm going to add that to the NRHP citation - it has lots of good info and maps.
Mamah Borthwick Cheney is called "Mamah" and "Borthwick" in the article. Does it make sense to use one or the other to avoid confusion?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her children have the surname Cheney, right? (I read somewhere that the children spent most of their time with their father, Mr. Cheney.)

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another way to say "a road that traveled up the hill" - this makes it sounds like it has its own wheels and moves up the hill?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone for the house came from a quarry on a nearby hill. Wright chose this yellow limestone because it came naturally from outcropping ledges." Could the sentences be combined, perhaps like: "Wright chose yellow limestone for the house from a quarry of outcropping ledges on a nearby hill."?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the math here: "Wright requested hundred and eighty-five apple trees planted, including one hundred McIntosh, fifty Wealthy, fifty Golden Russet, and fifty Fameuse." Is there a number that is supposed to go before "hundred"?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article state, before the killings, that Mamah's children lived in or vistited the house?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to say "hacked to bits" that has a bit more of an encyclopedic tone (e.g., killed, slaughtered)?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Turned his attention" is used twice in the same paragraph

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In "since apprentices did much of Wright's work, it was solely a benevolent institution" - should the word "not" come before solely?

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something between when the foundation considered plans to make the property a resort and it becoming a national landmark?

Better, one question above about whether the resort property is included in the national landmark, sounds like "no".--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Over $11 million has been spent on the rehabilitation of Taliesin during the past two decades" - since the article was written in 2008, should it say something like - "during the two decades prior to 2008?" or "between 1988 and 2008"? -- over time "past two decades" will mean something different to the readers who don't look at the citation.

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Financing renovations has been challenging because visitation to Taliesin has been lower than projected" - does this mean because "revenue / monies derived from visitation..."? (not saying that's the right wording, just trying to get the point).

Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

I see that there's been some updates as I've done some minor editing, so I thought I'd post what I have right now for the review. There may be some tweaks... but I think it's pretty much covers the material.

Great job, by the way, it's a very interesting topic... because of the background stories, it makes it a little trickier... but on the whole you've done a very good job.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of creating this page with a potential layout configuration - and some minor changes to the intro to describe the "district" / contributing properties. Aside from the additional couple of sentences in the intro, there's no change to the verbiage. How does this look to you?

This pretty much addresses the subject and sections items above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I apologize for the slow reply, but I have been out of town. I will begin to address your points this week. Teemu08 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about comments? If you question the reordering of some of the sections, it's partially a style issue, so I'm cool with that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for reviewing. I cut some of the information about Borthwick and Wright in Italy and focused on the material that is directly relevant to the creation of Taliesin. I agree that the title of the article is not perfect, but I have struggled to think of a better name for it. The intention is to cover the whole grounds, which largely (but not exactly) matches the NRHP/NHL description. Taliesin East is not an appropriate name because that name largely only saw use between 1937 and Wright's death. I think I will bring this matter up with the relevant WikiProjects to see if a good name can be identified.

Sounds good. I made a suggestion above in the Article subject section, and that sounds like a good approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about the NRHP list, Spring Green, Wisconsin is in in Sauk County and Taliesin is in Iowa County. I understand the confusion because Taliesin is often reported as being in or near Spring Green. Borthwick's name is a bit tricky to use because her name changed from Cheney to Borthwick when her divorce was finalized. I tried to avoid introducing that confusion into the article. I believe her children have the Cheney surname. I fixed some of the typos and ambiguous passages that you mentioned in the same section. I merged the preservation and recognition sections to make the timeline flow a little better.

Yep, good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comments about the sections and background, I am having some trouble envisioning what that would look like. It is hard to divorce (*rimshot*) Wright's personal life with the building because many of the choices he made were directly related. Wright built Taliesin I as a love shack for Borthwick. He built II after the murders. He had trouble building III because of his divorce to Noel. I do agree with the general notion that the flow of the article is choppy because the house dominates (as it should) the scope of the article. I am thinking that maybe instead I should add a brief rundown of the history and layout of the complex at the end of the Location section. Teemu08 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Teemu08: It's fine now with your edits and I understand your point about how the background is necessary for the article. There are just a couple of suggestions left in the Sections and background section. And, I made some tweaks to the article for Bothwick's children's names here, but they, too, are suggestions since the children's last name is Cheney.

It looks good, since these items are just suggestions, I am going to go ahead and pass the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<< Update for 2020, there are numerous citations for books that are not behaving correctly (i.e. Template:Sfn). They are not displaying as they should and act as a combined reference to their associated books. This makes it difficult for many to assess validity. Does anyone know how to fix? Would it be better to try a different method of citation instead? ALSO, some of the passages attributed seem like direct quotes from the referring books without greater care to crediting the biographer(s) and acknowledging possible bias of those authors. I don't have the books available at present to compare. Can anyone review?Roxanne-snowden (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]