Talk:Paul Shoup House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

OTRS comment[edit]

Per a comment by OTRS volunteer Adrignola, "the content in the application (linked from the template) supplied by Garavaglia Architecture (pretty much the entire application) is covered by the release as a work for hire." Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To follow up: we normally do not need permission to cite and paraphrase a nomination form, since they are public documents. We should credit author and date in the citation of course. Since they are not necessarily public domain, we would need permission to cut-n-paste, but generally paraphrase is better anyway. For example here, I would summarize some of the subsequent history of additions and probably link to American Craftsman in the body etc. On the other hand, the time I find permission very useful is when it covers the photos. Is this the case here? That is, if the photos in the application are also covered under the permission, then it might be interesting to pull one of the historic ones out and add to the article. Either in addition to the modern day one or in place of it (which seem to emphasize the family party more anyway, not the house.
Anyway, this article is much better quality already than most. Too bad we seemed to miss the window to get it into the "did you know" queue. It still needs to be linked from other relevant articles, such as the Los Altos article itself for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm working copyright issues for several older photos. I'm not confident of the copyright status on the National Register Application: doing further research for appropriate photos. Will update one when I can. I do agree that the "neighborhood party" photo isn't most appropriate, but it's one I have that I took - and the Wisteria is characteristic of the home in this neighborhood. As the National Register listing is primarily relating to the family - I'm starting the research there, and will add to the description of the house as I can. Thanks for the feedback on how the article can be improved: please continue to review this page as it's being updated. Wjenning (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, but no need to go overboard with photos either. An article of this importance usually gets one or two photos to balance the text. Probably one in the infobox and one further down or so. I do find the map interesting personally: by 1906 the lots were really subdivided already? Since we have an article on the eccentric Sarah Winchester, it would make sense to mention her in the body (with appropriate citation) to make that tie. Seems to match the built-up "downtown" Los Altos of modern day. Although this is somewhat covered in the Paul Shoup article so no need to totally duplicate I suppose. W Nowicki (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Sarah was an interesting gal. I was planning on adding one more photo of the house: I've found one from 1915 that was from a photographer that died in 1937. The photo appears to have never been published, was in the files at southern pacific railroad for many years [photographer's name is HC Tibbitts. I am also interested in knowing about how much text should I add regarding the house itself? I find the interior woodwork in the house quite interesting : as it's craftsman in weight, but has curves in it similar to victorian: it's all original. Also have a cool annunciator that was used in the 1920s that is still in place in the house that may be interesting. Also have antique lights from venice that the shoup's brought back from italy: don't have written confirmation of this: so probably can't cite it and use it. Regarding the map: I've been able to overlap a screen shot of maps.google.com on top of the historic map: that's how I placed the home's location: it's probably not able to be published, as it's using maps.google.com - was considering adding the location of the future railroad on the 1906 map: it's known to have followed present day foothill expressway.Wjenning (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Various observations[edit]

My first impression of the article is that a firm foundation has been built, with fair Wikipedia format.

  • AKA. The Paul Shoup House is also known as the Shoup House. Shoup House should redirect to the article, and Shoup House should appear in bold text in the first sentence.
Bink updated this, thank you 76.103.212.163 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LEAD, some more text may be brought to the lead section to summarize article contents. The existing lead is too small.
  • The lead could be made more interesting, telling the reader one or two more reasons why the house is notable. Certainly the reader should know this is the first NRHP designated in Los Altos. Perhaps the unusual or atypical nature of the Craftsman style could be mentioned. Susan Dinkelspiel Cerny says the house is "unusual" in its implementation of Craftsman Shingle style. Shingle style architecture should be linked and discussed in the article. The Cerny book could be a reference. Phyllis Filiberti Butler's 1975 book, The valley of Santa Clara: historic buildings, 1792-1920, describes the Shoup house as "an excellent example of craftsman shingle construction". Butler updated the book in 1991 and reprinted it as Old Santa Clara valley: a guide to historic buildings from Palo Alto to Gilroy. Both books have identical text regarding the Shoup house, so either one will do the trick.
  • Architect: More could be written about the architect's approach to the house. The architectural firm Wolfe & McKenzie (also described as McKenzie & Wolfe in some sources, and people sometimes spell the name Wolf with no 'e') became very busy in the South Bay after the partnership formed in 1900, and they were in high demand when Shoup contracted for his house. The late George Espinola wrote a book about them and their designs but I haven't seen whether the Shoup house is included: Cottages, Flats, Buildings & Bungalows: 102 Designs from Wolfe & McKenzie, 2004. I think the partnership merits its own article. Anyway, the partnership lasted until late 1910, so it's possible that the house was designed by the two partners rather than McKenzie alone.
  • Coordinates: The article does not need two instances of coordinates. A curiosity: When I click on the coordinates and select Google satellite view, Google thinks the address is 514 University, but the house is 500 University. Is the little arrow correct which would mean Google is guessing wrong?
  • Owners and residents: An expansion of owners might be interesting, following the Shoups to the Jennings and the current situation.
  • Style: Some expansion of architectural details would be good. Pocket doors, gables, bay windows, the wide front porch, etc. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Binksternet. Regarding McKenzie and Wolfe: there is continuing debate whether it was done just by Charles, or whether Wolfe was included. I had spoken with George a few years back on the home: and he believed it was both: but wasn't sure. John Baer in Los Altos has allegedly seen the certificate of completion : but can't find his copy of it any longer. I plan to dig for that someday... Regarding co-ordinates: it's definitely 500 University: it was the first house on that street, and it was that number back in 1910. At one time I had a draft that mentioned Shoups->Haucks->Days->Jennings, but didn't know if that was merited and I'm quite sensitive to a NPOV on this (you probably sorted out, I'm living there now). You may know that the former Shoup house in San Jose was in an area that had considerable McKenzie and Wolfe activity: it's very credible that they both worked on this design. Appreciate your perspectives: and if you're ever in the bay area, and want to whet that architecture appetite of yours: let me know : and hopefully we can arrange a tour. Wjenning (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if there is a question of who the architect was, the two possibilities may be stated and weighed in the article. It is not necessary for the article to be limited to absolute facts.
Architectural interior and exterior details that are described in the NRHP application or other sources are also suitable for the article.
My wife and I are fans of Craftsman and Shingle homes--the missus just got done captaining a home tour in Oakland for the Oakland Heritage Alliance (we are members). [1][2] We would certainly enjoy seeing your home. Here's how to email me. Back to Wikipedia: I'll do a bit of work on this article, adding more detail and sources, unless you get to it before me. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)