Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge Number 878/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Link some of the less familiar architectural terms in the lead, such as balustrade and cornice
  •  Done

Description

• Link cornice
  •  Done

Facade

• "A flagpole and brick elevator room is atop the roof," - Shouldn't it be were, not is, as "atop the roof" refers to both the flagpole and the elevator room?
  •  Fixed

Features

• Link terrazzo
  •  Done
• Link wainscot at the first usage, not the second
  •  Done
• Link parquet
  •  Done

Planning and construction

• "During the late 1890s, the former town of Newtown was renamed Elmhurst" - Drop the link to Newtown, since it just goes to the Elmhurst article. The context is clear that Newtown = Elmhurst, so the double link isn't necessary
  •  Done
• "and a stream called Horse Brook ran through the southern side of the lot, though this stream had dried up by 1902" - Our article on Horse Brook implies that it became buried, not that it dried up. There's a bit of a connotation difference, which one is correct?
  • This is a weird situation - the aboveground streambed at this location was close to the original head of the brook (which is actually one block southwest of Lodge 878). The brook itself continued to flow above ground until it was buried in stages, and the original aboveground streambed was drained. It looks like the section of the brook in this area might have actually dried up, though, instead of being buried, since the lot was so close to the source of the brook. I've changed the wording to reflect that the streambed here had ceased to flow above ground. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline and sale

• Ref 16 states that the reason that the building was put up for sale was the inability to pay a specific $60,000 tax bill. Should this be worked in there somewhere?
  •  Done I've added it in the third paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Critical reception and landmark designations

• You state that the annex and the addition were not made city landmarks. Are they part of the NRHP listing?
  • Yeah, they're on the NRHP as well. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent with Elks Lodge vs Elks lodge
  •  Done I've changed it to "Elks Lodge" throughout. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Are you sure the link for the church goes to the right homepage yet? It takes me to something about flash players that looks a bit scammy.
  • I just checked, and this is the right link. Unfortunately it still uses Flash. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• While the year of 2001 for the city landmark listing is cited, the exact date of August 14 is not
  •  Done
• City landmark number needs cited
  •  Done
• Area needs cited.
  •  Removed I can't access the website from which I think the area figure is taken. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Rest of it looks okay for me. All of the spot checks I conducted were clean. Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for yet another review. I've addressed all the comments. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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.