# Talk:Robie House

For some reason, Deuce X Machina desires to use this entry as a platform to espouse the position of the FLLW Preservation Trust rather than rely on the actual facts.  Deuce X Machina has no knowledge regarding the preceptions of a few volunteer docents.  This is simply how he/she would like to characterize the situation.  In fact, representatives of the Trust expressly stated in a meeting with the docents (at which the press was not premitted to attend) that the Trust was unwilling to commit itself to the full restoration of the Robie House, including furniture and textiles.
More importantly, Deuce X Machina restates the potentially defamatory statement of Joan Mercuri, the CEO of the Preservation Trust, that the docents were terminated by the Trust for violation of the Code of Ethics.  This is the assertion made by the Trust with absolutely no explanation or prior notice to the volunteers regarding what they had done that was in violation of Code of Ethics.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.76.192 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 

Vast improvements have been made to this article since 2007 when the banner at the top of the page was inserted. With the expanded text and inclusion of authorities, isn't it time that we took that banner down? 98.208.254.229 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! --ELEKHHT 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've cited a new source and included mentions of other sources that provide legitimacy to the new content. There isn't any controversy and the museum has expanded hours and program offerings, so the "Current Controversy" section is no longer relevant. In fact, Kate Hawley, who is cited in the "Current Controversy" section, states in the June 3 edition of the Hyde Park Herald that "concerns about public access appear to be unfounded . . ."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeThisName (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 
TakeThisName continues to remove the portion of the Robie House article entitled "Current Controversy"?  This material is relevant to the Robie House page and is verified with citations to the Hyde Park Herald, the local newspaper in Hyde Park.  165.124.76.192 (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been major unsourced changes to this article since the beginning of October. Is anyone 'watching' this article? --SVTCobra (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The house has been measured to be well over 6,000 sq ft, which by most measures is not a small house. Therefore, references to the house as "not particularly large" do not seem especially relevant. I am respectfully undoing recent unsourced edits that assert "smallness" as a reason for the expansive use of windows. Anomicworld (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robie House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I visited Robie House once when it was being used by the alumni association. All I got to see was part of the ground floor and those god-awful dining room chairs, making no allowance for human anatomy. I was enchanted with the windows, but greatly disliked the low ceiling. Those terraces are actually very small; it would have sucked to have been a child in that house and confined to playing only within the walls. At any rate...

Images properly licensed.
On my first read through, I'm not seeing much that needs to be changed or added. I'll do another, closer, read through looking for missing links, grammatical errors, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Are you planning to complete this review? If not, I would like to take over. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I got it--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Cites 6, 12–13, 25, 46, 64, 71, 99, 107, 169, 173, 180, 205, 212, 270, 285 spot checked
Every sentence does not need its own cite. I would suggest consolidating them wherever you use the same source consecutively, like cites 61 and 67.
Link alderman
I would suggest linking redevelop the surrounding neighborhood to urban renewal
I had to laugh when Philips Taylor complained about the excruciating dining room chairs that Wright had designed.
Down to Architecture, more later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the initial comments. Some specific replies:
For 'I would suggest consolidating them wherever you use the same source consecutively, like cites 61 and 67." - I have done so where practical. I've had experiences in the past where several consecutive sentences are cited to a single source at the end of the paragraph, as recommended in WP:REPCITE. Even so, people tagged the intermediate sentences as needing a citation, even though these statements were already sourced. It's a conundrum; putting the citation after every single sentence is overkill, but not doing that (which I prefer to do, anyway) can sometimes lead to problems.
I've not had that experience, but I can understand your reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I've linked alderman and urban renewal.
– Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Earwig says 32.9%, copyvio unlikely--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Were the Yahara Boat Club and the River Forest Tennis Club also designed by Wright? If so, red link them.
Link eave
Down to Interior, more later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the two redlinks. I think eave is already linked, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Quite right, sorry
Howzabout billiard?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I've linked that. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Link belvedere, fieldstone
Link or explain table scarf. Do you mean table leaves?
Very comprehensive; sources are very high quality. Article is of FA quality.
I'm glad to see you reviewing, just try to keep in mind that the prose, sourcing and information don't need to be nearly perfect for GAs; some infelicities of prose and incomplete coverage, etc., need to be ignored. You can point these out, but don't require them fixed to be promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Sturmvogel 66, I appreciate it. For my GA reviews, I'll note that most of my comments are optional; for the ones that aren't, I'll usually say "so-and-so should be done". But I appreciate the feedback too. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)