Talk:Pie house

Article Name

I live in Deerfield. Most locals call it the "pie house", as does the Chicago Tribune. I think the article should be renamed and revised accordingly. See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-09-25/news/0309250218_1_pie-two-story-house-permits for more information. I don't edit Wikipedia any more, so somebody may wish to take this on. --50.200.208.3 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The narrow end of the pie house

• ... that the pie house (pictured) in Deerfield, Illinois measures just 3 feet (0.91 m) wide at its narrowest? Source: "Known to locals as the Pie House, the two-bedroom home measures just 3 feet wide on one of its sides..."
  • ALT1: ... that a house (pictured) in Deerfield, Illinois has attracted the nickname "pie house" due to its unusual shape, which resembles a slice of pie? Source: "He also revealed how the house got its endearing nickname: "It's shaped like a piece of pie. Also it’s a 'slice' of history in Deerfield, an area in the famous North Shore of Chicago.""
  • ALT2: ... that the pie house (pictured) in Deerfield, Illinois gained media attention from a viral TikTok which received over one million views? Source: "The house recently exploded over Tik Tok after user @eli.korn_did uploaded a video of the two-story home’s narrow dimensions. Now having been viewed over a million times..."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Designasaurus

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

• Hi PCN02WPS, review follows: 5x expansion confirmed from 24 January; article is well written; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing of the sources; the sources used look to be reliable enough for the subject matter; you will need to add citations to the two footnotes; ALT0 is mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited; While ALT1 is mentioned in the sources it is only mentioned in the lead of the article (where it is not cited); you mention ALT2 in the article but it is cited only to Lad Bible which doesn't mention the million view figure; a QPQ is awaited - Dumelow (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dumelow: The first footnote has been cited and the I couldn't find any sources for the second (even though I could have sworn I saw some sources claiming it was four feet), so that one has been removed. ALT1 fact has been added to article body with a citation and ALT2's "million view" claim has also been sourced with the same reference used above in the hook. QPQ has been completed and linked above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi PCN02WPS, looks good. One query, from the photograph the outside of the house looks bigger than three feet. Do we know if the 3 feet quoted is the internal size? Bit wary of saying "three feet wide at its narrowest" if it is wider than this externally - Dumelow (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Dumelow, I hadn't thought about that. Obviously I think this nomination works really well as an image hook but if this issue prevents that I understand. I haven't found a source that specified whether the 3-foot measurement was external or internal, just that it narrows down to that width. This source, which I have just found, has a title and information in the article that suggest that the exterior tapers down to a width of "no wider than 6 feet", but again this is just a suggestion. If you think that this is reliable enough phrasing to determine that it is the external width, then I can update the article and the hook to reflect that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi PCN02WPS, perhaps it's best that we just don't mention the size in the hook. I think it's fine in the article as the text reflects the sources. Realised I didn't mention the image in my first review, it is good and freely licensed. Approving ALT1 and ALT2 - Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow, sounds good to me, I appreciate the review! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P6

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pie house/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 03:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@ PCN02WPS

So I believe that's all have to say about this article. Have a look at my comments in your free time and feel free to voice your opinion if you disagree with something.

I found this article pretty cool! Chilicave (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! Seems like a pretty interesting article. Will be reviewing it in the next few days.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments:

Verifying reliable sources:

RS (1) - no issues

(2) - no issues

(3) - seemed a little strange to me at first because it's a blog, but through research it turns out to be a viral blog, author is reputable and this blog is used in other reputable sources acc. to this website https://www.ahml.info/scheduling/reservation/91639 Seems to meet the exception acc to WP:SELFPUB - no issues

(4, 5, 6) - no issues

(9, 10, 11) - no issues

(7,8) - to be honest, I'm still doubtful of my verification abilities so I'm just gonna ask for a second opinion in regards to this.

Other nitpicks

a. "The house is trapezoidal in shape, rather than the traditional rectangular shape" - source (3) doesn't explicitly mention the house being "trapezoidal" in comparison to a standard "rectangular" shaped house. It does mention that it's "irregular' though...

b. "It was listed for rental on Airbnb shortly afterwards, in October 2020."

I don't see source (10) explicitly mentioning that the house was listed on Airbnb on October 2020. I do however see that the article was published in that month. But, how can we make an inference based off of the publication date that this house was listed on Airbnb in the month of October? (Please correct me if you see something I'm not). For now, I would suggest rewording this sentence.

c. "Despite outcry from neighbors"

The word "outcry" kind of sounds exaggerated and may interfere with the neutral tone of the article. Perhaps use another word like "disapproval."

d. "The house is two stories tall, and has a finished basement". Taking into particular consideration of the bolded words, source (6) does not mention anything about the leveling of the house. Other sources that I see do...

e. "The house is two stories tall, and has a finished basement.[6] It has more than 1,600 square feet (150 m2) of floor space, and contains two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and an additional half bathroom.[6] The ground level of the home follows an open concept plan."

This entire paragraph cites source (6) multiple times. Per WP:CITEFOOT, you can remove the first two inline citations and keep the last one at the end:)

f. The wiki link for "US$" is pretty straightforward in itself. I would unlink it. It also looks a little awkward next to the numbers.

Second opinion by Thebiguglyalien

I would not consider Only in Your State or LADbible to be reliable sources. They both appear to be low quality content farms or otherwise lack legitimate editorial oversight and journalistic practices. A discussion about LADbible in 2020 didn't get much participation, but consensus seems to lean against using it. I also notice that The New York Post is cited: this source generally shouldn't be used (I suggest avoiding "these sources are incorrect" type statements altogether because there's no source actually calling them incorrect). When there's uncertainty around a source, the reliable sources noticeboard can weigh in, and the perennial sources list tracks the most frequently discussed sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien! Chilicave (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Status?

@Thebiguglyalien, Chilicave, and PCN02WPS: where do things stand here. It looks to me like the reviewer(s) found some problems with unreliable sources and now we're waiting for that to get fixed, but that was like 6 weeks ago. If this can't get wrapped up soon, I don't see any alternative but to close this as a failed nomination. RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Since we received no response to the review, I will go ahead and fail the article. @PCN02WPS, you can definitely renominate this article in the future once these concerns have been addressed. Thanks Chilicave (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This totally fell off my radar (clearly) and at this time I don't really have the desire to work on it further - I appreciate the time spent on the review in any event. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)