Talk:Emil Bach House

Community area

Question, do people in Chicago actually call their neighborhoods community areas (because it sounds like official jargon nonsense)? If not, there isn't any reason not to use the more common term "neighborhood." (EDIT: That was what was there originally)(END EDIT IvoShandor 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC))IvoShandor 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Chicago and Evanston for 30 years and I have heard "the Rogers Park community", "the Rogers Park area", "the Rogers Park neighborhood", or most often simply "Rogers Park" (even though Rogers Park is also the name of a park). I have never heard a single person refer to it as "the Rogers Park community area" which sounds like a technical term used by the census bureau. I would leave it "neighborhood" since this is not a technical article on the census area. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced addition

This info is good if it can be sourced, I have moved it here until the references are provided:

Blinder corresponded with Anna Bach in the early 1960's while he attempted to restore the house. She was not able to provide much information to him and it is not clear what kind of assistance Blinder had for this restoration effort. Deteriorating wood trim was replaced, retaining walls were rebuilt and the stucco was replaced over the entire exterior. It was during this perior that the six art glass windows from the second floor bedrooms were sold. Only three are known to exist - one is held by the Art Institute of Chicago, two more are in private hands. During the years Blinder owned the property, the house immediately to the south was demolished and Blinder acquired the lot, which was linked to the property in every subsequent sale.

Frank L. Miller purchased the house from the Blinders in 1970. Miller recalled that the Blinders wanted to be sure that the house would be treated with tender loving care by its next owner. Miller worked extensively to ensure that the house would be put on the newly created Chicago Landmarks list in 1977 but ended up selling the house the next year to Fedor & Sirirat Banuchi. It was during this time that the house was added to the National Register of Historic Places (January 23, 1979) and the Banuchis entered into a preservation easement agreement with the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois. After owning the house for 21 years (the longest ownership in the history of the house, including the orginal owners), the Banuchis sold the property to Reza Toulabi, a successful Chicago restauranteur and real estate developer in 1999.

IvoShandor 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emil Bach House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070601171611/http://www.nr.nps.gov/ to http://www.nr.nps.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emil Bach House. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601171611/http://www.nr.nps.gov/ to http://www.nr.nps.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emil Bach House. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607163931/http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BachHouse.html to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BachHouse.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to take a stab at reviewing this article. I ran it through AWB to combine some duplicated references and other minor fixes; feel free to undo if it broke anything I didn't see. Expect further notes in a bit... Reconrabbit 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Prose

• Lead:
  • Structurally it makes sense to describe the location's provenance, history, and amenities separately. My one comment is that ending it with The second floor includes bedrooms and bathrooms. is a little strange, but I don't have any recommendations here.
    • I've changed this to "The second floor includes either three or four bedrooms, as well as two bathrooms." Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Could do to include a bit more from "Impact" beyond landmark status.
    • I added mention of the architectural reception and the coffee-table book. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• History:
  • After no one expressed interest in the house, the sale price to $1.9 million sale price lowered?
    • Yep, thanks. I have fixed this. I also changed it to "asking price" as it had not yet been sold. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • the house was relatively small compared to residences not designed by Wright Maybe this is just me, but this could be clarified - were there other residences designed by Wright in the neighborhood? (May be clarified later on, but not as of this sentence)
    • I clarified this sentence to make it clear that these other buildings were not designed by Wright. They aren't necessarily in the same neighborhood, however, so I split this from the preceding sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Virtual tours of the house were hosted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois,[42][43] and the house reopened in 2021 for in-person guided tours.[44] By 2023, Pritzker planned to resell the property,[45] and Tawani stopped renting the houses out that December "Houses" is used here before the second (Lang) house is introduced in the text
    • I changed "houses" to "house". Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
• Architecture:
  • Relatively little was known about the house's design even through the late 20th century, What happened after the late 20th century?
    • I removed this sentence as it was rather trivial. However, in the late 20th century, architects and students began taking an increased interest in Wright's work (for example, the architecture students who stayed at the house in 1987). This is part of the reason why there were so few newsworthy things at the house between the 1910s and the 1970s. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

References

• Layout: All seems normal. Y
• I had some misc. corrections to make here but you fixed them as I was writing this review.
• One of the sources I would really like to look at for this "Home by Wright: Sincerity is price" isn't accessible to me thru ProQuest.
  • I have added a newspapers.com clipping for this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Spot checking

64 references total, so checking 16 (25%). Based on this revision:

• [5] Y
• [8] Y
• [10] Y
• [13] Y; thanks for clipping!
• [15] Y
• [25] Y
• [33] Y; places location of Morgante Wilson but errs in stating that the furniture was "selected" and not "rebuilt", assuming [35] (Chicago magazine) is more authoritative here
• [36] Y
• [42] Y
• [29] Y
• [14] Y
• [40] Y
• [57] Y
• [49] Y
• [51] Y
• [58] Y noted addition of porch, but not sundeck - confirmed in [2]. More useful in establishing publication of Hartnett book

• No copied passages as I can see it beyond statement of fact that would be awkward to work other ways ("Emil Bach and his wife Anna", "the house was built in 1915 for Emil Bach", "was added to the National Register of Historic Places") Y
  • Thanks for the source review. For [33], the other source does indeed say Interior design architecture firm Morgante Wilson used drawings and photographs to faithfully rebuild these pieces.. I've replaced it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Scope

• Broad: Entire history (besides early period where little of the design is known/recorded), design, and impact are described. Y
• Narrow: Few items are omitted, but unnecessary granular detail (measurements, etc.) are avoided Y

Stability

• Neutrality: Where viewpoint is expressed, it's properly attributed. Nothing egregious in wikivoice Y
• Edit warring: No major edits to the article from anyone other than the nominator for the past 3 months - no instability noted Y

Images

• Free/Fair use: All images public domain or use appropriate CC licenses. Y
• Relevance: All images are in appropriate places, except for possibly File:Historic American Buildings Survey Richard Nickel, Photographer July 1967 LIVING ROOM LOOKING EAST - Emil Bach House, 7415 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, Cook County, IL HABS ILL,16-CHIG,83-3.tif, which is in a section that dates much later than 1967 (but is understandably placed if this is to avoid WP:SANDWICHing text in a smaller viewport or otherwise aesthetic reasons). Also, absurdly long filename.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks for opening this review so quickly, Reconrabbit. I've responded to the initial feedback that you left above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Nearly done, but something's missing in the first paragraph of "Architecture". Reconrabbit 17:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Thanks for reviewing this so quickly. I've fixed that final issue now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I see the changes made, and additions are welcome (I wouldn't have realized they were missing without having read more about the work myself, so thanks). Reconrabbit 17:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit, unfortunately there are no reliable sources about the house that talk specifically about this increased uptick in interest. It's just a trend that I noticed; if I added it to the article, it would be original research. (To be more specific, sources like this do talk about the increased interest in Wright's work in the late 20th century. It's just that none of them mention the Bach House specifically, so adding this detail might be a violation of WP:SYNTH.) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I did want to make note of that (that there was less research prior to the late 20th century, but only referenced in the past tense, and not in a contemporary meta-analysis way). Thus it was probably for the best to omit that. By additions, I meant more the changes besides that ("several of the original architectural features had been removed, including benches and a dining table"). Reconrabbit 17:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Emil Bach House

• ... that all of the walnut decorations in Chicago's Emil Bach House were sourced from a single tree? Source: Goldsborough, Bob (February 1, 2004). "Landmark North Side Wright house up for sale ; $2.5M price includes adjacent buildable lot". Chicago Tribune. p. 3.
  • ALT1: ... that after a year of unsuccessful attempts to sell Chicago's Emil Bach House, it was auctioned off in eight minutes? Source: "8 minutes of going, going, and Wright house is gone". Chicago Tribune. March 9, 2005. p. 2.3.
  • ALT2: ... that one critic said that Chicago's Emil Bach House "packs more creativity than a 10,000-square-foot McMansion"? Source: Kamin, Blair (October 4, 2014). "Bach and Robie: Tale of two Wright homes has different angles, outcomes". GoErie
  • ALT3: ... that while restoring Chicago's Emil Bach House, workers obtained a paint sample from a historian who, as a teenager, had taken a piece of the house's plaster? Source: Sachs, Andrea (September 8, 2019). "Modernist majesty". The Washington Post. p. F.4.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Minami-Centrair
  • Comment: The article previously appeared on the Main Page in 2007; DYK renominations are now allowed after five years per WP:DYKNEW.

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 708 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC).

• This article, promoted to GA on 3 March, is new enough, long enough, and well-sourced. No copyvio problems. QPQ done. A very nice image, free and legible at low resolution. All four hooks are so good, it's a shame to choose! I'm most partial to the first hook though, which is in the article, cited, with an offline citation accepted in good faith. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)