Talk:Edward R. Hills House

message: In response to all of the issues brought up in the GA review, I am now 80% complete with a major overhaul and expansion of this article.  Here's were I am so far using the issues above as a guide:
*Lead section rewriting: NOT DONE.  While I have adjusted the grammar, I am holding off until completion of the rest of the article so that I can match it to the flow of themain text.
*Clarification on extent of 1906 remodeling:   The first history section now explains what parts of the original house were saved during the remodel.  Another set of floor plans are coming soon to further explain this.  A diagram has been completed to show the original and final position of the Gray/Hills House and its neighbors.  This diagram is going to have a few tweeks aplied to make it more readable sometime soon.
*Now the numbered items:
:# Who was William Gray?  William Gray was the father of Frank Gray, for which the Hills house was initially built in 1884.  William Gray was not the father of Mary Hill as initially stated in the article; that was Nathan Moore.  Note that the article does not mention William Gray as I did not find him significant enough to include (although he did live in the house breifly before it was sold to Moore).
:# Was he the owner of the previous house, or did he just buy it for his daughter?  Answered above.
:# What is a sander (wikilink recommended)? .
:# OK, we are in 1976 and only now I get to learn that Hills did some changes to the building. Please sort out the chronology and provide some insight into the nature of changes.  The changes have been both documented in text as well as the pre-fire floor plans.  Dates were provided when possible.  The article also now correctly states which changes were (not) undone in the reconstruction.
:# "stick style" needs not be written with a capital letter. .  The "Stick" in Stick style should indeed be written as a capital letter.  I have checked 3 book sources on this point.  It is questionable whether "style" should also be capitalized.  I think not.
:# The fact that the house is on the Forest Avenue could be mentioned in some other place in the article, even in the lead section (I am still in favor of including addresses, wherever available, in infoboxes)  The address is now included in the lead section; it is not however in the infobox
:# While you describe many features of the house, it is hard to get an idea about the size of the house, the plan (rectangular? square), the floor plans (how many rooms? what is on which floor?) and in general, given that there are photos available, this section is hardly involving for the reader (I know I said it many times encyclopedias can be boring, but I guess we can still present encyclopedic facts in an interesting manner whenever possible).  This paragraph has been completely replaced by two sections detailing the exterior and interior elements of the house.  The sections aim to describe the most important features (and those not shown in photos) without delving into too much detail.  Other readers and peers may still believe that I have written to much.  (What's your opinion?).
:# The first paragraph in the significance section should come as second, and is a mess - I do not get the impression of a logical flow.  Like the architecture section, the significance section has been mostly rewritten.  It is now more of a comparison section for elements from the previous two sections.
:# OK, so we can learn something about the interior, but only at the end of the article...  See above.  Although I regret that I can find no interior images, hopefully my description and floor plans will  give a fairly good impression of the inside spaces.
Now for some changes I still want to make:
* Draw a third set of floor plans showing the house in 1906 with an overlay of the 1884 house.
* Mark out the changes in the pre-fire and  post-reconstruction floor plans using shading and line weight
* Clean up the location of images; place all of the plans in the same general area of the article (near the corresponding time period)
* Change the name of the Architectural Signifcance section; it no longer seems like the best title
* Finish editing the last two paragraphs of "Comparison to Other Wright Works"
* Clean up the references; break out separate page sources for O'Gorman and HAARGIS works.
* Most importantly: work on the articles flow.  I'm still not sure if the architecture section should come first, last, or somewhere in the middle. 
* Rewrite the lead section to match the flow of the article. 
Fox69 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward R. Hills 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/20110724112743/http://www.oak-park.us/public/pdfs/Historic%20Preservation/11.08.06_Historic_Landmark_List.pdf to http://www.oak-park.us/public/pdfs/Historic%20Preservation/11.08.06_Historic_Landmark_List.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified