Talk:Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House

Photos

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS photos do not seem to be available for this site.
• NRHP photos seem not to be available on-line for this site.
• New photos would be helpful.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First 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/20090403223514/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-2084254169&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-2084254169&ResourceType=Building

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) 10:36, 1 April 2017 (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 Rjjiii talk 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House

• ... that Herbert Jacobs and his wife charged people admission to visit their house (pictured)? Source: Scardino, Albert (May 27, 1987). "Herbert Jacobs, 30's Reporter Who Reshaped Architecture". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that Herbert Jacobs and his wife charged admission to visit their house (pictured), earning enough money to pay for the architect's fee? Source: Scardino, Albert (May 27, 1987). "Herbert Jacobs, 30's Reporter Who Reshaped Architecture". The New York Times.
  • ALT1A: ... that Herbert Jacobs and his wife paid off the architect's fee for their house (pictured) by charging visitors admission? Source: Scardino, Albert (May 27, 1987). "Herbert Jacobs, 30's Reporter Who Reshaped Architecture". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that to save US$35, the owners of the Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House (pictured) asked its architect to shorten a roof eave by 2 feet (0.61 m)? Source: Jacobs, Herbert (October 4, 1976). "[For Working] And Living". The Capital Times. pp. 21, 22.
  • ALT3: ... that the owners of the Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House (pictured) could not obtain a U.S. federal government loan because the house had a flat roof? Source: Gill, Brendan (1987). Many Masks: A Life of Frank Lloyd Wright. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. p. 389
  • ALT4: ... that the popularity of Frank Lloyd Wright's Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House (pictured) prompted Americans to ask him to design their houses? Source: Rosenbaum, Alvin (1993). Usonia: Frank Lloyd Wright's Design for America. Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. p. 150.
  • ALT5: ... that the first owners of the Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House (pictured) spent all their savings on just the land? Source: Gill 1987, p. 389.
  • Reviewed: Niederdollendorf stone (3rd of 3 QPQs)

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 717 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC).

• Will be claiming this for review and will work on it within the next few days. Personally I think ALT3 is the most interesting hook as it's not uncommon for houses to charge admission for entry, and the others seem somewhat more specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I looked at this to review for a qpq but see that it is already occupied. I dislike ALT3 because it says nothing special about the subject, just about building laws. (It may be misnumbered above.) My favourite is ALT1, but I'd add a link to the architect, who for some readers might be the only thing interesting. All hooks need a pictured-clause. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about this again, I might be more open to ALT1 if it's slightly reworded so that the focus in on the "paying the architect's fee" aspect rather than simply the charging for admission aspect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for taking a look. I've proposed ALT1A accordingly. As to Gerda's comment, I've added "pictured" to the hooks. Epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in doing this! Real life matters suddenly caught up. I'll get to it tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in reviewing. A 5x expansion was accomplished at the time of the nomination and meets DYK length requirements. A QPQ has been done. I did not find any close paraphrasing, and the article is adequately cited. ALT1a is the best option of the hook and the only one that I'm approving. It is cited inline; I will assume good faith here as the NYT source is asking me to register to view it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review. Here's the complimentary link to the NYT article if you wanted to check it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Please forgive me if I shift in and out, it's a long read. As an initial comment, the Lead should be expanded. Absent seems to be the process of its designation, and coverage of its impact. I'll possibly have a better idea about the lead after going through the whole article. Most of the images are plausibly licenced, but is there a reason the names of the uploader and author are different for File:Rear, Herbert A Jacobs House, Madison WI, USA (1 of 1).jpg? Article is stable. More to come. CMD (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I do see your point about the lead, though I think it has less to do with the landmark status and more about the other parts of the "Impact" section not being covered in the lead. I've added a little more about these sections.

For File:Rear, Herbert A Jacobs House, Madison WI, USA (1 of 1).jpg, I'm not sure what the deal is with the uploader and author. Maybe the uploader's username is not the same as their real name; I know I sometimes use my real name, rather than my username, for certain uploads. The metadata shows that the pic was taken on 15:13, 17 September 2018 (hours before it was uploaded to Wikipedia), but it doesn't show the camera model, which is a bit fishy to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The selective infobox citations are appreciated, and I think the UNESCO self-references from the link. Not sure if "Private" is a governing body, but that is probably a limitation of the infobox. Lead now covers what I mentioned above.

• "about 3 miles (4.8 km) southwest of the Wisconsin State Capitol", should this be southeast?
  • No, it's located southwest (technically, west-southwest) of the Capitol. - EG
    • Just to check I'm not missing something and that is a convincing google maps link, the source says "Downtown Madison was an easy commute in those days, the capitol situated exactly three miles to the northwest." Am I misinterpreting it or is there an error?
• Possibly better to say that the house sits on a ridge with one side sloping towards the lake, rather than say the ridge exists only under the property. The latter "overlooking Lake Wingra" also seems redundant to this and not quite in the source (the slope doesn't look that steep on google maps, so the sightline was likely obscured by other houses and trees).
  • I have reworded it. You're correct that it doesn't overlook the lake, but the ridge does slope toward the lake, if ever so slightly. - Epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    • As a final clarification, the source says the subdivision as a whole is on the ridge. I'm not familiar with converting that to say a ridge is under a house, but if you are sure that works then that is fine.
      • I've tried to reword it to further clarify that the ridge stretches through the entire area, not just under the house. Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Lind 1994 checks out. NPS checks out aside from above, (and has further details about the house's positioning in the northwest of the property, although adding such details is beyond GACR). Can't access a few other sources I tried but they pass the sense check and roughly align with google maps.
• Working from this oldid for source numbers to be clear given shortrefs, Sources 17, 19, and 20 pass spot checks.
• Barrett 2003 checks out, although it seems a tad more favorable towards Wright than the article text, noting he as well as the Jacobses sought to keep costs down.
  • That is implied (though not explicitly stated) by the source, though it was typical for Wright's projects to go significantly over budget (that detail isn't mentioned in this article specifically, but there are sources in other articles that I can dig up). Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Double checking on the spelling of "Eifler", in NPS he's "Eiffler"
  • His name is spelled "Eifler" in other sources like this speech he gave, and this magazine article. NPS seems to be the outlier.

This family is doing regular moving into unfinished houses. A long read, but few comments to make regarding the GACR. Couldn't access quite a few of the sources, but checked through the many citations for NPS; Wisconsin State Journal 1987, Richgels 1990, and Stockinger 1985 also spot checked among a couple others. No neutrality issues found, while there is a wide use of Jacobs and Jacobs, this is integrated within less invested sources. The notes explain some of the conflicting figures in the text. CMD (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the initial comments. I've left some responses above. Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Will assume the NPS cardinal directions are an error. Well-written, spot-check questions all answered, very detailed but that fits the topic scope, neutrality per above, stable, illustrated per above. CMD (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)