Talk:Walter L. Dodge House

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 Media copyright questions. --08:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)