Talk:Fallingwater/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review, as part of the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive; please consider participating in the latter. Comments to start appearing in the next few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, ~~fiction, and list incorporation~~:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments from ErnestKrause

AirshipJungleman29 is the main reviewer here and these are some optional comments and observations.

Regarding the Impact section towards the end of the article, I'm thinking that the article might benefit from a stronger starting point as its opening sentence rather than a comment on sightseeing observations. In the Peter Gay book titled Modernism there is a nice summary of the impact of the building as being among the finest homes which Modernism had to offer.

There is no floor plan included in any part of the article. It might be nice to see at least something along these lines.

The section structure for the entire article looks fairly good though occasionally there seem to be very short 2-3 sentence paragraphs, which seems on the short side for a full paragraph. It might be worth looking at. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comment @ErnestKrause, and sorry for not seeing this before. I've addressed the first two points you raised. for the Impact section, I moved the sentence beginning with "Fallingwater was one of the world's most-heavily-discussed modern–style structures by the 1960s" to the beginning of the paragraph.

For your third point, I understand your concern regarding short paragraphs. I attempted to combine paragraphs based on how relevant they were to one another. However, some paragraphs remain short because they cannot be readily combined with others. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Sorry for taking a while to get around to this; I started once but my computer crashed and erased my comments.

Article looks generally good in terms of prose quality, neutrality, images, and covering main aspects. Will do a source spotcheck to confirm criterion 2. The one part of the criteria I do have concerns about is criterion 3b): at 10,500 words, the article is well inside the "probably should be divided" category at WP:TOOBIG. I'd like to hear your thoughts on trimming or splitting material to other articles.
- You raise a good point that the article is quite long. I was trying to stick only to the most relevant details, which was difficult given that Fallingwater has received a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Despite this, I really don't want to use the excuse that "this is a level four WP:VA, so the article needs to be long", so perhaps I can try trimming the page a bit. (I also considered splitting the history sections into another page at one point, but I'm not confident that many people would even click through to a History of Fallingwater article. I'll try trimming the page tomorrow, though - especially given that you mentioned that some sections may be too detailed, we may not need to split this yet.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Is a bit short for an article of 10k words (MOS:LEADLENGTH). Perhaps more detail on some aspects of the article less touched upon?
- I've added a fourth paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure thaat the unspecialised reader will understand what "cantilevered from a chimney" means (WP:EXPLAINLEAD). Is there a less technical way to explain this here?
- I've tried to gloss this term. Feel free to let me know if this works. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Body

I agreed with EK's suggestion of a floor plan above, so good to see it implemented; another diagram that would be useful is a map of the structures and terrain described in "Geography and structures". Obviously not mandatory, would just be nice to have for visualisation.
The "Use as house" section is mostly devoted to planning and construction, not to its later use as a house. I would suggest splitting this rather long section.
- I have split this section. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"At that point, Wright's fellows were concentrating nearly all their efforts on the design of Kaufmann's proposed buildings." as opposed to...?
- I removed this, as it seems rather trivial. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"who at the time was working on Lynn Hall" relevance?
- I removed this too. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The museum was named in memory of Edgar and Liliane Kaufmann" so what's the official name?
- I meant to say that it was "dedicated in memory" of the Kaufmanns. (The official name, as far as I can tell, has been "Fallingwater" or less commonly "Falling Water" after the WPC took over the house.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"telling the WPC about his findings" definitely unneeded
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too much MOS:OVERLINK throughout the article, for stuff like visitor center, light opening, architectural design competition, etc.
- I cut a few overlinks and a few more duplicate links. I should note that, in architectural contexts, it's sometimes difficult for me to determine which links are excessive and which aren't; I see these links so often that it doesn't seem out of place to me. I did keep a few links, like plate glass and reinforced concrete, where people might be familiar with the subject, but where the linked article provided more information. Please let me know if there are further examples that you think can be removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think quite a bit of the renovation details, in "Use as museum" especially, could be streamlined.
Similarly, a fair bit of "Architecture" seems less architectural and more dimensional/structural, if that makes sense. For example, most of the second paragraph of "Terraces" is unintelligible, for me anyway. I would consider adhering closer to WP:MTAU, especially WP:ONEDOWN.
- I've taken a stab at condensing these sections, along with other parts of the article. The page now has 9.7K words, still a bit on the long side but similar in length to, say, Genghis Khan. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The house has four bedrooms" is somewhat oddly placed between sentences on the floor plan and area.
- Good point. I moved this to another paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "kitchen kettle's arm"????
- I clarified what this is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, nothing to talk about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments so far, AirshipJungleman29. I've addressed or replied to all of them, and I look forward to your spotcheck. As for the length, I agree it was an issue and have trimmed close to a thousand words. I do think that, given the number of sources that talk specifically about Fallingwater, the length is still somewhat warranted, but not to the extent that it needs more than 10,000 words. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's fair. I'll do the source spotcheck in the next day or two. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

Ten sources checked, and all good, although some took a bit of finding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.