![]() | Rookery 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard off-hand once that there is no building (excluding monuments and towers) that is both taller and older than the Rookery but I've been unable to source this. Does anyone know if this is true and where I might be able to verify this with a source? Ronnotel 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is fairly close to GA status in my opinion, but some things are preventing me from passing it. First, the Light Court and Other Architectural Details are a bit overly infested with not so neutral prose. There are words like: commended, evolutionary, and majestic and, then, those quotes of praise interspersed with concrete details that make the sections look extremely jilted. Perhaps it would be better to get pictures of these features in the article or, failing that, to at least link to external pictures of the light court or of some of these features so the reader can "see for himself" the majesty of the light court. Second, in the renovations section, there could be slightly better coverage of Wright's remodel than via "then contemporary tastes." For example, the next remodel mentions the Art Deco style,etc. So, I'd like to see an improvement in the sections about the light court and the architectural details of the building that make it notable in Chicago's architectural history.-- Meowist 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree/know it doesn't need pictures for the light court to get GA. The alterations to the Light Court are satisfying and really improved the flow and coverage of that most public portion of the building's interior. I'll GA pass it now. Ideas for improvement are, admittedly, not coming to me at the moment. Improve red-links...perhaps grow the Tenants section if someone or something notable resided therein. Also, perhaps something interested took place within or with respect to this building during its history unrelated to architectural changes. That's about all -- Meowist 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be basically good. It is a very simple and short article. The topic is fairly covered the links check out and there are good sources. Images are good, it is a stable article w/ no POV issues. I will therefore keep it as GA. H1nkles ( talk) 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Rookery as in Rookery (slum) sounds like a very inappropriate name for a nice tower. Or, perhaps, this meaning was absent from contemporary American English? The article on Rookery (slum) says it did, in fact, exist in American English but the link to 1934 Time article is unconvincing. East of Borschov ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the vivid red color exterior it would be nice to have a color exterior shot. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rookery 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) 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Rookery 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard off-hand once that there is no building (excluding monuments and towers) that is both taller and older than the Rookery but I've been unable to source this. Does anyone know if this is true and where I might be able to verify this with a source? Ronnotel 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is fairly close to GA status in my opinion, but some things are preventing me from passing it. First, the Light Court and Other Architectural Details are a bit overly infested with not so neutral prose. There are words like: commended, evolutionary, and majestic and, then, those quotes of praise interspersed with concrete details that make the sections look extremely jilted. Perhaps it would be better to get pictures of these features in the article or, failing that, to at least link to external pictures of the light court or of some of these features so the reader can "see for himself" the majesty of the light court. Second, in the renovations section, there could be slightly better coverage of Wright's remodel than via "then contemporary tastes." For example, the next remodel mentions the Art Deco style,etc. So, I'd like to see an improvement in the sections about the light court and the architectural details of the building that make it notable in Chicago's architectural history.-- Meowist 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree/know it doesn't need pictures for the light court to get GA. The alterations to the Light Court are satisfying and really improved the flow and coverage of that most public portion of the building's interior. I'll GA pass it now. Ideas for improvement are, admittedly, not coming to me at the moment. Improve red-links...perhaps grow the Tenants section if someone or something notable resided therein. Also, perhaps something interested took place within or with respect to this building during its history unrelated to architectural changes. That's about all -- Meowist 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be basically good. It is a very simple and short article. The topic is fairly covered the links check out and there are good sources. Images are good, it is a stable article w/ no POV issues. I will therefore keep it as GA. H1nkles ( talk) 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Rookery as in Rookery (slum) sounds like a very inappropriate name for a nice tower. Or, perhaps, this meaning was absent from contemporary American English? The article on Rookery (slum) says it did, in fact, exist in American English but the link to 1934 Time article is unconvincing. East of Borschov ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the vivid red color exterior it would be nice to have a color exterior shot. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rookery 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) 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)