Talk:Emil Bach House/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'd like to take a stab at reviewing this article. I ran it through AWB to combine some duplicated references and other minor fixes; feel free to undo if it broke anything I didn't see. Expect further notes in a bit... Reconrabbit 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead:
  • Structurally it makes sense to describe the location's provenance, history, and amenities separately. My one comment is that ending it with The second floor includes bedrooms and bathrooms. is a little strange, but I don't have any recommendations here.
    • I've changed this to "The second floor includes either three or four bedrooms, as well as two bathrooms." Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could do to include a bit more from "Impact" beyond landmark status.
    • I added mention of the architectural reception and the coffee-table book. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• History:
  • After no one expressed interest in the house, the sale price to $1.9 million sale price lowered?
    • Yep, thanks. I have fixed this. I also changed it to "asking price" as it had not yet been sold. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the house was relatively small compared to residences not designed by Wright Maybe this is just me, but this could be clarified - were there other residences designed by Wright in the neighborhood? (May be clarified later on, but not as of this sentence)
    • I clarified this sentence to make it clear that these other buildings were not designed by Wright. They aren't necessarily in the same neighborhood, however, so I split this from the preceding sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtual tours of the house were hosted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois,[42][43] and the house reopened in 2021 for in-person guided tours.[44] By 2023, Pritzker planned to resell the property,[45] and Tawani stopped renting the houses out that December "Houses" is used here before the second (Lang) house is introduced in the text
    • I changed "houses" to "house". Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Layout: All seems normal. Y
• I had some misc. corrections to make here but you fixed them as I was writing this review.
• One of the sources I would really like to look at for this "Home by Wright: Sincerity is price" isn't accessible to me thru ProQuest.
  • I have added a newspapers.com clipping for this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

64 references total, so checking 16 (25%). Based on this revision:

No copied passages as I can see it beyond statement of fact that would be awkward to work other ways ("Emil Bach and his wife Anna", "the house was built in 1915 for Emil Bach", "was added to the National Register of Historic Places") Y

• Broad: Entire history (besides early period where little of the design is known/recorded), design, and impact are described. Y
• Narrow: Few items are omitted, but unnecessary granular detail (measurements, etc.) are avoided Y

• Neutrality:
• Edit warring: No major edits to the article from anyone other than the nominator for the past 3 months - no instability noted Y

• Free/Fair use: All images public domain or use appropriate CC licenses. Y
• Relevance: All images are in appropriate places, except for possibly File:Historic American Buildings Survey Richard Nickel, Photographer July 1967 LIVING ROOM LOOKING EAST - Emil Bach House, 7415 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, Cook County, IL HABS ILL,16-CHIG,83-3.tif, which is in a section that dates much later than 1967 (but is understandably placed if this is to avoid WP:SANDWICHing text in a smaller viewport or otherwise aesthetic reasons). Also, absurdly long filename.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks for opening this review so quickly, Reconrabbit. I've responded to the initial feedback that you left above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]