![]() | Roanoke Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 6, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
Roanoke Building sits on the site of a former building by the same name that was once an official climate site for the
National Weather Service? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that the source relied upon in this article, for the assertion that this is building is a National Historic Landmark and that it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, may be incorrect on one or both points. I can't find any mention of this building, searching for "Roanoke" and for "Lumber", in the NRIS database of NRHPs, and scanning through the NRHP's designed by Holabird & Roche in the architect search screens It does not appear in the NHL database.
It does not appear yet in wikipedia article List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois, which is updated by others. That list is noted to have been updated, for Chicago, through November 2007, which would indeed leave the possibility that appeared in the NRHP new listings after November. But I can't find any new listing for it by general google searching, looking for it, either. About new National Historic Landmarks, I think those are announced fairly prominently, but I cannot find it in google searching.
In recent days there have been problems with the National Park Service webservers, and only part of their site is back up, it seems to me, so it also remains possible that there is some announcement there, yet to be restored. But it seems unlikely to me that this is actually a NHL. I would imagine it could have been deemed "NHL-eligible" or something like that, which could be what the source picked up on. doncram ( talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Per discussion above, the site has not been designated an NHL. There is a chance that it has been approved at some level, but it has not been announced. If it has been approved, it may be announced by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior along with other NHLs she has been saving up to announce together, but it is not an NHL until it has been proclaimed/designated by the announcement. So I removed the NHL claims from the article just now. The main piece of text that i removed was: "In early 2008, it was named a National Historic Landmark." [1]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I did send an email to that author directly, and I would report here if I heard back from him. I conclude it was an error. Not a big deal, and there was an apparently reliable (although erroneous) source for the statements that I removed from the article. Hope this is okay. doncram ( talk) 05:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roanoke Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
For an architectural article it has far too little information on the architecture of the building. All there is is a brief reference to Portuguese Gothic (which seems inaccurate; since it's not a medieval building I assume it must be neo-gothic). With the NRHP-listing it seems likely that the building has something to distinguish it architecturally, and that there should be information available on this. There is also far too little information on tenants - one seemingly random example is not enough. There is also no information on the origin of the name. Though not a requirement for GA, I would recommend using Non-breaking space (
) for such things as addresses and measures. I will put the article on hold for a week, so these issues can be addressed. Good luck!
Lampman
Talk to me!
22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Roanoke Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Roanoke Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 6, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
Roanoke Building sits on the site of a former building by the same name that was once an official climate site for the
National Weather Service? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that the source relied upon in this article, for the assertion that this is building is a National Historic Landmark and that it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, may be incorrect on one or both points. I can't find any mention of this building, searching for "Roanoke" and for "Lumber", in the NRIS database of NRHPs, and scanning through the NRHP's designed by Holabird & Roche in the architect search screens It does not appear in the NHL database.
It does not appear yet in wikipedia article List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois, which is updated by others. That list is noted to have been updated, for Chicago, through November 2007, which would indeed leave the possibility that appeared in the NRHP new listings after November. But I can't find any new listing for it by general google searching, looking for it, either. About new National Historic Landmarks, I think those are announced fairly prominently, but I cannot find it in google searching.
In recent days there have been problems with the National Park Service webservers, and only part of their site is back up, it seems to me, so it also remains possible that there is some announcement there, yet to be restored. But it seems unlikely to me that this is actually a NHL. I would imagine it could have been deemed "NHL-eligible" or something like that, which could be what the source picked up on. doncram ( talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Per discussion above, the site has not been designated an NHL. There is a chance that it has been approved at some level, but it has not been announced. If it has been approved, it may be announced by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior along with other NHLs she has been saving up to announce together, but it is not an NHL until it has been proclaimed/designated by the announcement. So I removed the NHL claims from the article just now. The main piece of text that i removed was: "In early 2008, it was named a National Historic Landmark." [1]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I did send an email to that author directly, and I would report here if I heard back from him. I conclude it was an error. Not a big deal, and there was an apparently reliable (although erroneous) source for the statements that I removed from the article. Hope this is okay. doncram ( talk) 05:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roanoke Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
For an architectural article it has far too little information on the architecture of the building. All there is is a brief reference to Portuguese Gothic (which seems inaccurate; since it's not a medieval building I assume it must be neo-gothic). With the NRHP-listing it seems likely that the building has something to distinguish it architecturally, and that there should be information available on this. There is also far too little information on tenants - one seemingly random example is not enough. There is also no information on the origin of the name. Though not a requirement for GA, I would recommend using Non-breaking space (
) for such things as addresses and measures. I will put the article on hold for a week, so these issues can be addressed. Good luck!
Lampman
Talk to me!
22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Roanoke Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)