Talk:Walter L. Dodge House

A fact from Walter L. Dodge House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 6,607 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1916 Early Modern Dodge House in West Hollywood, California, called one of the fifteen most significant houses in the United States, was demolished in 1970 to make way for apartments?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/January.

Wikipedia

Architecture

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles

	California portal 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

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.

Image copyright problem with File:Irving Gill.jpg

The image File:Irving Gill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly

This looks that same as every other similar house around the world - shoddy, unoriginal and ugly. One can only have contempt for the people who want to preserve such buildings, and aspire to inflict as much of this sort of ugliness on the world as they can get away with. Greg Grahame (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a POV tag as this article is pure modernist fan club material. I refuse to believe that no one has ever given this house the public cricitism it deserves. Although I know full well the concerted sneering abuse that the modernist establishment would pour over the head of anyone that dared to criticise its collective opinion. Greg Grahame (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point that the house doesn't look that great, particularly in the HABS photos (the only free ones available to illustrate the article, and which are pretty poor pictures relative to many other HABS pics). The linked photos are better. Also, it may be that the house was influential and, originally, did seem very novel and neat, while now it doesn't. Like how special effects in old movies might have looked great then, but don't now. However, your POV tag is not justified by your asserting that there must exist public criticism that is excluded from the article. The article's author is not affiliated with the house and has documented what is written in the article. Please do find some criticism of the house, and then yes that should indeed be added to the article. doncram (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read the article. It already states criticism, that the preservation effort was stymied because of views that the house was "unremarkable", etc. I think Greg just doesn't like the house, which is okay, but the article is fine and is not POV. doncram (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the quote from the Los Angeles Times reflects balance. It states: "In some ways, it's a house only an architect would love. Nothing noteworthy ever happened there, and it's not really old enough to claim historical status. Visually, it has neither the charm nor nostalgia of a 'period piece,' nor the spectacularly expressive design of many 'modern' residences. From the outside, it seems quite ordinary." Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]