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 is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
I appreciate the excellent edits done by McGhiever on February 25. However, I find that I don't like the new lead sentence. It changes the emphasis of the article to being about the state park rather than the Lowell Walter Residence that Frank Lloyd Wright nicknamed Cedar Rock. Granted, it is a state park, which I gather is an interest of McGhiever's, but in this case that's simply the legal situation rather than what is noteworthy. The previous wording took into account both the noteworthy building and its official status as a park of the State of Iowa. I won't revert the edit because it included numerous other valuable additions. Thoughts?
--Frankie Rae (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just combined the first two sentences, so hopefully more of the salient bits feel included in the opening line. Anyone is welcome to fine-tune the wording, and I will happily participate in building consensus here on the talk page. WP:LEADSENTENCE has some stylistic tips. I would simply advocate that the first words of the article should reflect the title. I agree that the phrasing I used initially wasn't very descriptive. I was just trying to rectify the disconnect where the article began with a name in bold that was completely different from the title, which would be confusing to a reader linking in from elsewhere. How does the expanded first sentence sit with folks? --McGhiever (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
