Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward R. Hills House/archive1

Edward R. Hills House

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia. Over the last three weeks I largely rewrote the entire article to improve the flow, improve the accuracy of certain facts, and expand the history and descriptions. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some second opinions on my changes and to see how well I am adhering to the guidelines and quality standards of Wikipedia. I hope to get the article to meet good article standards should I decide to renominate it for GA status.

Since I have reworked the order of information in the article many times over, I would especially appreciate comments of this nature.

Thanks in advance, A.Fox 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I note that you are new to Wikipedia and making an effort to get this article to WP:GAC. In order to have it pass as a GA you will need to meet the GA criteria. I'll review the article and provide suggestions on how to bring the article up to this level. I'll also comment on Manual of Style issues and try to help guide you along the article writing process.

Lead

• Make sure in your lead that you cover all the aspects of the article in summary fashion. The reader should be able to read the lead and get a skeletal idea of what the subject of the article is about. The body of the article then fills in the details. See WP:LEAD for more on this.
• One-sentence paragraphs are not really considered good form in WP. Consider moving the final sentence in the lead into the preceding paragraph.

Early history

• Watch overlinking. See WP:LINK. Basically if the word is used in common English then it probably doesn't need to be linked. Words like "adjacent" and "remodel" are probably not good candidates for wikilinking. But if Nathan Grier Moore had his own article he'd be a great name to link. Also the first mention of Frank Lloyd Wright in the article should be wikilinked.

✓Removed wikilinks for "remodel" (both occurences) and "adjacent" as well as words like "architect," "attorney," and "autobiography," which seem self explanatory. A couple new links have been added where appropriate including one for Dr. Gray, Charles C. Miller, and Nathan Moore in case they should ever have their own article. A.Fox

• The diagram of the house move is excellent since any description of it is a bit confusing.

Wright's design

• When writing for WP always think that less is more. The less words you can use to convey the same message the better. Here's an example:

"Inside, the existing stair hall was retained and extended to serve as the central circulation spine for the first and second levels."

There is no need for the word, "Inside", since the rest of the sentence makes it obvious that we are talking about the inside of the house. I removed the word but you may want to think about looking at redundant or unncessary wording throughout the prose. This isn't so much of a big deal at WP:GAC but if you wish to push this article up to WP:FAC then it becomes a really big deal.

✓Done. This is a case where I agree with you (I also removed two other occurneces of "inside" and "outside." Sometimes words like that are appropriate for focussing a readers attention in the topic sentence of a paragraph. A.Fox

• This sentence is a fragment:

"A finished third story, accessed by the tight service stair, contained two servant bedrooms and a second."

And a second what? I'm confused by the ending of the sentence.

✓Done. One word was missing: "bathroom" A.Fox

• You give the square footage of the first and second floors, what about the third? Is this info available?
• Usually it's unseemly to drop in-line citations into the middle of sentences. Normally they go at the end of the sentences or at least after a comma. See ref 26 for what I'm talking about.

Hills ownership

• With information in parentheses the ref should go outside the parentheses, see refs 34 and 35.

✓Done. Whether or not that is in a MOS somewhere (probably falls under placing notes after puctuation), I agree it looks better. A.Fox

• The last paragraph in this section discusses the property lines in more detail. Honestly I don't think this is necessary detail given the article's subject is the house. Unless the property line changes in some way affect the house I would remove this information as too detailed. See WP:SS for information on writing in a summary style.

Recent years

• Has the Pergola been finished? If not is there an estimated time of completion? If so is there an image that could go in this section rather than the one showing the foundation?

according to one of the article sources I used, it was supposed to be done be completed late last year. The answer is probably yes, but I don't have any reliable source to tell me that. As far as a picture, hopefully someone will take one during the Wright Plus home tour coming up next month (I won't be able to attend). Just getting a picture of the rear of the house was hard enough to come by. A.Fox

Notes

• Usually the External Links come after the Notes and References.

✓Done A.Fox

• Why do some of the notes have page numbers and others do not?

Because those sources were in web format and did not have pages. I realize there is a redundancy issue with having several different endnotes for the same source, but I haven't found a better system yet. I don't like the style where some references are placed under "notes" and the rest under "references." As soon as I find a cleaner way to do it, I will change it. A.Fox

• I'm not a big fan of wikilinking the notes as you have done here, it's not a big deal I just don't really know what it accomplishes.

As part of the Harvard reference style, the notes and referenced are wikilinked automatically. But then, depending on the source, sometimes it doesn't work so maybe it is unnecessary.A.Fox

References

• I think you have a formatting issue with the Trainor book reference.

✓Sure was. I don't know how I missed that extra "url =" A.Fox

Overall

• Overall I think you have a great article here. I like the diagrams and images. I think your writing is good, and your formatting is fine.
• For GA standards your adherence to the Manual of Style is totally fine. You should expand the lead to encompass every part of the article's subjects.
• As far as organization of the sections I think it's very good, chronological order seems the most intuitive. I would consider removing the "Before Frank Lloyd Wright" part of the "Before Frank Lloyd Wright: Frank S. Gray House (1883–1900)" sub-section title. It seems a bit long and cumbersome. The reader will quickly pick up that this was before FLW got involved, especially if they read the lead.

✓subsection title has been changed A.Fox

This concludes my review, I hope you found it helpful. If you have any specific questions or concerns you can poke me on my talk page and I'll be happy to address them. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Its nice to get an opinion from someone who has been writing and reviewing articles here for some time. I honestly didn't know that Wikipedia had such a developed set of standards until I started writing this article. I've looked through all of your comments and I don't think I have any questions yet, but I will be sure to leave you a message if I do.

A.Fox 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)