Talk:Heller House

message: *Historic American Buildings Survey: data set
*JSTOR sources
:*"A Note on the Chicago Fair of 1893 and Frank Lloyd Wright": Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
:*Frank Lloyd Wright and the Fine Arts,": Perspecta
:*"Ornamentation and the Organic Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright": Art Journal
:*""The Century's Triumph in Lighting": The Luxfer Prism Companies and Their Contribution to Early Modern Architecture": Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
More to come, hopefully. IvoShandor 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I want to bring into question the accuracy of the official Chicago Landmarks site on such items as date of designation. A Chicago Tribune article dated February 7, 1960 indicated that the Heller House was designated a Chicago Landmark long before the date claimed by the official website of September 15, 1971. I would lean toward the Trib's date, as there is no indication that the government site has been vetted for accuracy. IvoShandor 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there is a difference between a Chicago Landmark and a Chicago Architectural Landmark? The Trib using both terms interchangeably, HABS says it became a Chicago Architectural Landmark in 1961. Thoughts? IvoShandor 06:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt a difference in the designations.  I am not sure if the Architectural designation is still granted.  I noticed this walking by the Auditorium Theatre some time ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: City of Chicago sources are not error free, to put it mildly. A similar discrepancy exists for the nearby K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple. Speciate 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The city Landmark cite is pretty accurate and the confusion lies in another designation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of Chicago Landmarks site

message: Which Silver Lake does the article refer to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point as well. Maybe a town near Chicago. --andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver Lake 

message: I have gone through almost all of this article and have re-arranged things, added references, fixed some links and corrected grammar. I have not done everything, but nobody's perfect... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, pass. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 30, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass.
:2. Factually accurate?: Well documented and sourced. Pass.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Article is as thorough as the subject demands. No omission of any major facet of the topic. Pass.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Yep, no problems here. Pass.
:5. Article stability? Very. Pass.
:6. Images?: Good, but this could be improved. Pass.
This article has seen some improvement in the past few days, most notably from TonyTheTiger and Andreasegde. It definitely now passes as a Good Article under all criteria, as it 1.) does not skip over any significant details 2.) is informative 3.) no copyright vios and 4.) NPOV.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Lazulilasher (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank Lazulilasher for the review, and also thank him/her for not only reviewing the article, but working on it as well. This is not common, and deserves a special thank you for that. --andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I am just removing this bit of information. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, it has to be verifiable from a published source. Per wiki policies on original research, and verifiability, I am removing this. IvoShandor (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roof renovations, cite needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heller 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  tag to https://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/il/Heller.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607163457/http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/H/HellerHouse.html to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/H/HellerHouse.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060417/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1818611782&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1818611782&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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified