This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Doubtful that a construction firm donatef a building in order to memorialize someone, as current wording seems to suggest! —Doncram (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
His family hired the firm.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but that is not what the article suggests, it basically says the contractor built the building in order to memorialize someone unrelated to them, and seems odd to me. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the second opinion. I've rephrased it. Yet another interesting building in a small town...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks, that's better. It still seems to elevate/over-emphasize the construction firm, relative to the architectural firm say. I would bet that the family chose the architect who chose or gave input on the construction firm, rather than the other way around (or does the NRHP document say they chose the builder first?). It is odd in general, by the way, that the NRHP infobox format presents the builder before listing the architect, when both are given, because that is opposite order of how it usually happens. Anyhow, thanks for making some adjustment. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not really, but you can rephrase it if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
