Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton House

Elizabeth Plankinton House was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
February 26, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 31, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "Merchant Prince and Princely Merchant" John Plankinton built a mansion (pictured) as a wedding gift for his daughter Elizabeth, but she refused to live in it because her fiancé Richard Henry Park ran off with a dancer?

Current status: Delisted good article

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Replacement

In light of the negative views, giving rise to the "Ugly Behemoth Blocks Progress" story, it might be interesting to include a picture of what was built in the house's place. Or has that been torn down too? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake

Given why Elizabeth Plankington never lived in the house, one must wonder what happened to her (the article says nothing about her after her refusal to live there). Did she eventually marry? Did she become an old maid, living on an upper floor in her father's house (across the street)?

I have answered my own question: she never married, and died in 1923. This is now in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 04:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing review

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hello, Doug. I'll be reviewing all the Plankinton articles within the current GAN Backlog Drive and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I have a few problems here which need to be resolved before I can do a full review:

First, a cn was added only this morning by another editor so that must be addressed.

@No Great Shaker: Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the Zimmermann source which is cited several times is a dead link so I need verification by other means.

Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Replaced with 1979 HUD Environmental Impact Statement.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third, in the Construction section, the clause unfortunately, Elizabeth's husband-to-be married another woman in September 1887 needs attention because "unfortunately" is a weasel word and the clause is out of context there.

Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Removed unfortunate sentence. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These points are confirmed in the criteria above, but I'm remaining neutral on the majority of criteria for now. If these difficulties can be resolved, I'll be happy to continue the review which goes on hold for the time being.

No rush, by the way. If it takes more than seven days to sort out, no problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

The article is fine now, Doug. I just took out the EL section because it was empty.

I do like the photos in this one – very atmospheric and nostalgic. It's difficult to say from old photos if it really was an "ugly behemoth" but perhaps it was out of style with its surroundings. I noticed the comment "bad Victorian taste" and that is something we often see and think over here. Victorian buildings tend to deserve the word "piles" and are not so much bad taste as tasteless. Georgian architecture, on the other hand, is almost unfailingly high quality.

Anyway, that's three Plankintons down and one to go. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]