# Talk:Hollyhock House

In short, no.  See my comments at  Talk:Barnsdall Art Park#Merging Holyhock house with Barnsdall Art Park dm (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's notable in its own right. Mfield (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been a week with no additional comments, so I'm removing this...  dm (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The history section contradicts itself, saying both that the house is currently open and closed. Fixing properly would require knowing when the open period including the 2005 date mentioned, actually began. I don't, so I'm leaving it to someone who does. HuwG 203.208.123.81 (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Making some changes here, looks like the house both opened and closed in 2005. Alladode (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyhock House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609160708/http://www.preservation.lacity.org/monuments to http://www.preservation.lacity.org/monuments/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyhock House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114222420/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=853494857&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=853494857&ResourceType=Building
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two of these images on the page. There is only a slight difference in text but is basically the same image. I didn't want to delete one if it was against policy. KyleBYerrick (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollyhock House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 15:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Start review
(1) Nice images and site plan, but no floor plan. 
(2) Citation style seems to mix title format, and prose format; all cites should be in the same format. 
(3) Are the theaters at all in use at this time or completely cancelled; lede should state more plainly if all the theater plans became defunct.
(4) Meg Sullivan's article in the 1990s is not a book; it is a newspaper article it seems. Article states the opposite. Possibly add the book title in that sentence by its title.
(5) Same for the art gallery use of the house; if its all defunct, then this should be made more plainly stated when they are discussed or mentioned.
(6) This wording in the lede is accurate for theater plans, though it may throw off some readers who want to find the description of it in the main body: "Barnsdall had wanted to build a theatrical complex." It might be changed to something like, "... Barnsdall tentatively planned to build...".
(7) The color images are by far better suited for this article; the stone finishes on the walls appear very grey on grey, which in black&white photos really takes something away. Could some of the images be replaced with color ones when/if available. 
(8) You do have one image of the blooming flowers in front of the building already; should a close up of the flowers by itself be added?
Something to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review.
For (1) and (7), unfortunately this isn't really resolvable as the floor plans may be protected by copyright, and freely available color pics may not exist.
There appear to be an abundance of floor plans which are well-drawn on a simple google search here: [1]. It seems like at least one or two of them would be outside of copyright restrictions. Reagrding the BW images, then on my little 13 inch screen I'm getting alot of grey on grey on grey; Grey skies, against the gray walls of the house, against the grey lawn in front, which doesn't look very reader friendly. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, I see what you mean. I can look into uploading floor plans later. - EG Epicgenius (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Let me know when you find a usable floor plan; I'm inclining toward supporting the article since the prose is fairly well written and well-researched. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
For (2), if you're talking about {{harvnb}} style vs. WP:CS1 style citations, it is consistent in that references that mention multiple page ranges use harvnb citations. The rest use CS1 templates directly. This isn't a GA criterion; it may come up at a potential FAC, but the exclusive use of one or the other isn't required at the GA level.
It looks like "Castillo, Andrea (February 23, 2020)," is currently listed in prose format, with not all words in upper case in the title; whereas the majority of the article using title format, with all words in caps in the title of the article being cited. All citations should follow the same format; its not a harv cite issue. Similarly for the last three cites in the article: 364, 365, 366, which all use prose format for titles unlike most of your article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. - EG
I've fixed it. - EG
There are at least a half dozen more of these in the article; for one example see "Photos from inside Hollyhock House today" in the cites and many others. I'll list some more one by one if needed. There are a number of others like this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and fixed some more. If there's any others I missed, please let me know. However, the capitalization of the titles is a minor issue, because (for the most part) these were taken verbatim from the source, and because I don't think the GA criteria require consistent capitalization, only the FA criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
For (3), (5) and (6), the house is currently used as a museum. There is no art gallery or theater in the house, though the surrounding park (which has its own article) does have art exhibits.
Lede now reflects this situation well. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
For (4), it is already formatted as a newspaper source. The newspaper is reporting on the existence of the books. Epicgenius (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Can you make more of the book "Smith, Kathryn (1992). Frank Lloyd Wright, Hollyhock House and Olive Hill: Buildings and Projects for Aline Barnsdall. Rizzoli. ISBN 978-0-8478-1540-1." The reader might like to know that there were other Barnsdall projects beyond what the article current states on Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause, besides this house and surrounding structures (already detailed here), the only other thing Wright designed for Barnsdall was a structure in Beverly Hills that was never completed. I didn't think the detail was relevant to this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Number 8 added above. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
For (8), I am physically unable to do so because I am located thousands of miles away from the subject. Someone else could do it if they wish, but as this doesn't seem to fall under part of the GA criteria, a {{image requested}} template on the talk page may suffice. Epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear about your progress for a floor plan as you mention it above. Nice going on converting the titles in the reference section. This is the Hollyhock image which looks best suited to the article, currently not featured: it shows the ornamental style of the growth of the leaves and flowers on the stalk which was of importance to FLW. Ping me when you do the floor plan, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
To Epicgenius; If you prefer for me to close without the floor plan you mention or the hollyhock image, then mention it here. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, yeah, it may take a while to find or make a floor plan that isn't copyrighted. I can add the hollyhock image, but the floor plan may take a while, and it may be better to expedite the GAN review without waiting on the floor plan. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Closing comments:The article is well written and has a highly useful reference section. The useful reference section also suggests more room for further progress of the article if that's the direction the nominator is interested in. The images in the article are quite good, and adding the actual hollyhock image as a double image looks like it will be useful to new readers of the article. Eventually, a floor plan would be nice to see, especially if the article is submitted for further eventual promotion. Nice going, article is supported for promotion to Good Article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)