Talk:Julian F. Everett

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Low‑importance 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. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 20 July 2018 by reviewer RoySmith (talk · contribs). Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Wisconsin Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cropping some of the photos would be terrific. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All we have is that there was an architect named Geiser that Everett worked with. Presumably, as an architect, he worked with many other architects and there is no reason why we should merely list all of them. Please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that you want to get the article length up to the level required by DYK, but this is not the way to do it. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say he worked with Geiser, it says Geiser worked for Everett. It's quite normal to include figures who began their career with an architect and went on to some prominence. I added a second cite detailing some of Geiser's work in Seattle, so if you want to elaborate on his later career after he went solo feel free. Isn't it quite normal to state prominent figures someone mentored or studied under? I see it often. How is this any different? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Just because the state architecture historian creates an entry for Geiser does not make the thing worth noting. You need to learn to curb these magpie tendencies, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Geiser may have designed some notable stuff is not a reason for producing a citation in this article that he did so - you're going off on a tangent. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what was removed:

Architect Albert A. Geiser worked for Everett in 1910-1911.^[1][2][3]

FloridaArmy (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? As with the next section, you shouldn't just dump stuff here because you don't like the fact it has been removed from the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section referred to in above post now removed here as point-y and contrary to TPG. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of works lists two residences for Redelsheimer, one constructed in 1906 and another that is undated but for which an address is supplied. The former is verified by the source but I cannot see the source for the latter - are they actually different buildings? - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the dates for the second residence were included? Wasn't it built from 1910 until 1914? Maaybe you removed the details? I think this source shows the two homes. They appear quite different? A cite for the 1906 home is provided and as I recall there's a contemporaneous article on it. Sadly a lot of the relevant content about the architect, his buildings, and his clients has been removed. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to 2-story brick building as residence for Redelsheimer at 60th Ave. And Whitham Street - it is still in the list. Also, should the And be capitalised? I never sure about US street naming conventions. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I think I fixed it. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix seems to have moved the building from 60th Ave and Whitham to 40th Ave. Are you sure this reflects the sources? - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell the source says 40th Ave. and Whitham Street. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the "60th" was a typo by you? I'm sorry to go on about this but I cannot see that source here and something is or was wrong somewhere. I'm slightly concerned that you're now saying "As best I can tell" because that suggests either the source is unclear or you may be uncertain in some other manner - either way, we shouldn't be stating it as an accurate paraphrase if there is any room for doubt. This sort of basic fact isn't really the type of thing that should require subjective interpretation etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like there are two different Redelsheimer houses. According to this source there is a 1906 Jules Redelsheimer House and a 1916 Redelsheimer-Ostrander House. The source listing 40th Ave and Whitman Street [1] merely says "plans have been completed". We don't know for sure if that house was built and, since the source is dated 1913, it probably refers to the Redelsheimer-Ostrander house, but who knows if this planned house was ever built. Neither house has a confirmed address. The third source [2] says the Redelsheimer-Ostrander house was significant between 1900 and 1924 (contradicting this source which says built in 1916). My suggestion is include only the Redelsheimer-Ostrander house since it is on the national register of historic places, don't give an address, and don't give a year. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newer house is along Lake Washington by Denny Blaine Park. Completed in 1914. Olmstead Bros. landscaped the grounds 3 years after it was completed. (This fact removed from article by Sitush and note of it removed from this talk page by Sitush). The older house was on Summit Ave. according to this source which includes a picture described as being of the older house. I'm not really sure what the problem is? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what appeared to be pointless statements. They were pointless because you didn't explain how they might improve the article, because they appeared to be snippets of random trivia, and because they were practically non sequitor. I still think that you may be on dodgy ground: you're potentially engaging in original research by synthesising several minor mentions to create an impression that is not necessarily what the sources say. This is something that you are aware has happened before at other articles you have created because your methodology has been to create a grab-bag of minor mentions in order to construct the things. I may be wrong but you are not helping yourself, sorry.

I am still considering whether this article should actually go to AfD. Notability is not inherited and so the existence of NRHP-listed buildings does not in itself make their architect notable. There really doesn't seem to be much in-depth coverage of this guy other than the state directory of architects etc and even that suggests little is known about him because, according to a contemporary, he hid his light under a bushel. - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sitush. For example, the source you mention above this one merely mentions a house belonging to Redelsheimer. You're assuming that this house and the 1906 house are the same but there is no evidence that that is indeed the case. Redelsheimer could easily have had more than one house or could have sold the 1906 house and moved into a different one. That's classic WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 19:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me what an Exchange Building is? The article talks about a Pathé Exchange Building, suggesting that there was more than one. Here in the UK, we have "telephone exchanges", which are usually single-purpose buildings where telephony interconnections are routed. I'm guessing a Pathé Exchange Building was some sort of cinema dedicated to screening newsreels, in which case we should be able to find some sort of article that covers the topic and to which we can link. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pathé Exchange. I assume this was a cinema building showing their movies. Apparently the Seattle division was not notable enough to be mentioned in our article on the exchange :) This is what epitomizes the problems with this article. Of course an architect would have designed several buildings, but which ones are notable enough to be included on Wiki? Clearly, we can't just list all the buildings they've designed (several of my friends would then have long articles here!). --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So Building should be building! I agree regarding the friends and I note that one of the major sources in this article explains the lack of information about the guy using a contemporary comment that he wasn't a great advertiser of his abilities and contented himself with lesser projects despite apparent ability. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As an example, the building I live in was designed by an architect, has a name, and both these facts are easily found on the Internet (the web site of the city). At least three people in the building that I know of, and perhaps more, have Wikipedia pages. Does that mean we can create articles on the building or the architect? No, because notability is not inherited and the mere existence of a fact doesn't mean we add that fact to Wikipedia. This article is full of stuff like that. --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed "full of stuff like that". On a more pedantic note, I can't make sense of the list ordering. It doesn't appear to be by date, location or alphabet. Truly random. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the source for the Exchange Building in the list. That does actually explain its purpose but also says the subject building, which was built in 1922 is Seattle’s earliest extant film exchange building. Note the word extant - unless I have missed something in the source, this does not necessarily make it the first building constructed for Seattle's burgeoning film industry. There is a big difference between earliest extant and first. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source also literally just mentions that the construction plans were drawn up by "J. G. Everett". Nothing more said about the guy - could there have been a J. G. Everett and a J. F. Everett operating at the time? Is it a typo in the source? - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Forget this bit - another source says it was J. F. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a dates muddle as well (1922? 1923?) but I think we can safely assume that the building was designed by Everett. Perhaps we can replace "first building" by "a building"? The source does seem to imply that the street was already a film row when this building was designed.--regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased it, fixing also the capitalised B issue. Left the dates out pending some sort of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, and this source, says he moved to Ventura in 1920. But then, why was he still designing buildings in Seattle (the pathe exchange building). Seems odd. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could the dates in that particular source refer to construction rather than design? - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Kind of odd, though, that we know nothing about him since he moved to Ventura. I looked. --regentspark (comment) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~It is odd but it just adds to my general impression that this guy really is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some searching to find additional sources. I found one retrospective biography ^[1]. It's kind of thin on details, just a few factoids of birth, schooling, where he lived, and who he worked with. That led me to ^[2] which is a contemporary piece about him (page 15, second column). Unfortunately, it's more about his hobby raising chickens than about his architecture work. I also found several mentions in journals ^[3][4][5], but they're all just name drops in relation to a project he worked on. In short, I don't see anything that talks in depth about him, to the extent that WP:BIO requires. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort. I do sometimes find it awkward to access sources located in the US even when they're theoretically available via Google Books. When I am less medicated I will have another go myself using a proxy server to get round at least some of my viewing limitations. I also appreciate that it is not the role of AfC reviewers to dig beyond what prima facie appears to be an acceptable article: you did exactly what you should have done as a reviewer. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best source I've found is https://dahp.wa.gov/bio-for-julian-f-everett. It talks about the subject in depth. The only problem is it's local coverage (Washington State talking about a local figure), so fails WP:AUD, and it's only one. If there were a couple more sources that went into that kind of depth, especially if they were in sources that weren't local to Seattle, I'd be more excited. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• John R. Toole Home, N.E. view, in 1910.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bot, but that's not quite right. I accidentally uploaded the wrong image the first time, and fixed it by uploading the correct one. My deletion nomination is to get the first, incorrectly uploaded, imaged deleted to avoid copyvio issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]