# Talk:Roanoke Building

It seems to me that the source relied upon in this article, for the assertion that this is building is a National Historic Landmark and that it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, may be incorrect on one or both points.  I can't find any mention of this building, searching for "Roanoke" and for "Lumber", in the NRIS database of NRHPs, and scanning through the NRHP's designed by Holabird & Roche in the architect search screens  It does not appear in the NHL database. 
It does not appear yet in wikipedia article List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois, which is updated by others.  That list is noted to have been updated, for Chicago, through November 2007, which would indeed leave the possibility that appeared in the NRHP new listings after November.  But I can't find any new listing for it by general google searching, looking for it, either.  About new National Historic Landmarks, I think those are announced fairly prominently, but I cannot find it in google searching.
In recent days there have been problems with the National Park Service webservers, and only part of their site is back up, it seems to me, so it also remains possible that there is some announcement there, yet to be restored.  But it seems unlikely to me that this is actually a NHL.  I would imagine it could have been deemed "NHL-eligible" or something like that, which could be what the source picked up on. doncram (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Update:  Sanfranman59 reviewed his copy of new listing info and found that "Lumber Exchange Building and Tower Addition", 11 S. LaSalle, Chicago, was in fact listed on the National Register on 12/6/2007, so it is confirmed at least to be a NRHP.  I am hoping to receive further details such as refnum and any mention of the NHL, if it appeared in the new listing info. doncram (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And more google searching, given that info, turns up http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/listings/20071214.HTM as the specific National Park service new listings announcement that would be relevant, but that URL reports an error still.  A copy pasted into a document posted elsewhere on the internet (by Kasson School KARE group or something like that) shows the REFNUM assigned is 07001238, and there is no other information in the new listing document other than name, address, date just reported. doncram (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am virtually positive the assertion of new NHL designation for the building is incorrect.  I consulted with others on the talk page of WP:NRHP, and here is a restatement of my conclusion there:  After searching on the NPS site (now seemingly back up) and elsewhere, I conclude that new National Historic Landmarks are announced prominently by proclamation and press release by the Secretary of the Interior, and covered in news stories in affected areas, and we would also hear about them in the general news.  For example April 2006 news article about March 20 NHL designation of Madison, Indiana, historic district, March 27 2006 NHL announcement about Graceland, February 2006 announcement of Manitoga NHL, 18 sites designated NHL on same day in 2003.  New NHLs would probably be announced in the NHL webpage system, too, among other news items on the NHL webpages News page.  There was a Presidential announcement of a couple National Monuments, but no NHLs, it appears, since I became active in WP:NRHP in September or so.  I emailed the reporter whose article included the seemingly incorrect assertion of NHL for Roanoke Building, but didn't get a reply within 24 hours, and don't really expect a reply, will report if i do get one.
So in my view the National Historic Landmark claims should be edited out of the article.  And, also, the NRHP infobox should be modified to show the NRHP program name for the site, Lumber Exchange Building, in its title. doncram (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Per discussion above, the site has not been designated an NHL. There is a chance that it has been approved at some level, but it has not been announced.  If it has been approved, it may be announced by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior along with other NHLs she has been saving up to announce together, but it is not an NHL until it has been proclaimed/designated by the announcement.  So I removed the NHL claims from the article just now.  The main piece of text that i removed was: "In early 2008, it was named a National Historic Landmark."

I did send an email to that author directly, and I would report here if I heard back from him.  I conclude it was an error.  Not a big deal, and there was an apparently reliable (although erroneous) source for the statements that I removed from the article.  Hope this is okay. doncram (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

actually i have to add the reference back into the article to support a different point in the article. doncram (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roanoke Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

For an architectural article it has far too little information on the architecture of the building. All there is is a brief reference to Portuguese Gothic (which seems inaccurate; since it's not a medieval building I assume it must be neo-gothic). With the NRHP-listing it seems likely that the building has something to distinguish it architecturally, and that there should be information available on this. There is also far too little information on tenants - one seemingly random example is not enough. There is also no information on the origin of the name. Though not a requirement for GA, I would recommend using Non-breaking space (&nbsp;) for such things as addresses and measures. I will put the article on hold for a week, so these issues can be addressed. Good luck! Lampman Talk to me! 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to find info.  I have been scouring the internet.  I will see if I can get a hold of the NRHP application or something.  It may very well be neo gothic, but I can not find any references to say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I now believe the article is satisfactory as far as can be demanded of a Good Article, and as far as available sources permit, so I am promoting it to GA status. Lampman Talk to me! 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Roanoke Building. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=HomePage&contentOID=536966798
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityfeet.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?Id=27062&PartnerPath=
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sat_restoremar01,0,3405726.story
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2846.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910135932/http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/sublegmatters/111307/111307submatters.pdf to http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/sublegmatters/111307/111307submatters.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hydepark.org/historicpres/landmarkscrit.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u5gDe.htm
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) 23:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)