Talk:Peter J. Weber

Review requested

Looking for advice on changes needed to make this article ready for publication, thanks. Davestolte (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The article isn't formatted like typical Wikipedia Biographies, so working on that would be a good idea. Additionally, there are no sources to the article; they need to be added. B3251 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added sources and formatted as a biography per your advice. Could this please be reviewed for publication? I’m not sure what the next step is, thank you. Davestolte (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A lead would be helpful as well. See: WP:LEAD, WP:CITE and WP:MOS SSR07 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added sources and changed the formatting to follow the Biography template. Davestolte (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Added citations

Please review for publication, thank you. Davestolte (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

First, for what is, I think, your second article, you've done a grand job. It's well laid out and you've followed the advice above in terms of Wikipedia's house style. As to when it will be reviewed, I'm afraid that's in the lap of the gods. Wikipedia:Articles for creation has quite a backlog at the moment, and I think it can take a few months for a reviewer to turn up. In the meantime, I thought it might help if I made a few comments/suggestions.

1. Reliable sources - as you recognise, this is the article's biggest weakness. There are two, Ancestry.com and findagrave.com that just won't cut it. They are user sourced, although Ancestry does have other useful material, and can't be considered reliable. Similarly, conversations with the Weber family won't do, as such personal recollections aren't;

2. Verifiable - like Reliable Sourcing, Verifiability is another bedrock principle for Wikipedia. Readers need to be able to check that what we have written on this site is accurate, by being able (at least theoretically) to check it against a reliable source. As an example, I tried to check the details of Weber's Retirement against your Source 11. While that looks like a reliable source, it doesn't seem to confirm the details you've written. And that will be an issue at review.

3. Online and offline sources - Sources don't have to be online, e.g. book sources are absolutely fine. The verifiability can be theoretical (see above). That is, I can state that page no. X of Book Y says Z, and provide an identifier to the book, and that would be ok;

4. On a related point, I’m not sure I see the point of the “External links” section. As far as I can see, none of them actually are links, so they don’t take the reader anywhere useful. Would they be better titled as “Further reading”? Alternatively, if you have access, can they not be fully used as Sources?

5. Lack of Sources - this is the nub of the problem. If reliable/independent sources haven't really covered the life and works of an article subject, in this case, Peter J. Weber, then you may struggle to demonstrate;

6. Wikipedia:Notability and to justify an article. As an example, I'd like to write an article about Julian Mesic, an architect/draughtswoman who worked with Julia Morgan. But I just haven't been able to find the necessary sourcing. I think the issue is made more difficult by the fact that Peter J. Weber shares a name with another, earlier, American architect, Peter Joseph Weber, [1] who appears to have rather more of an on-line presence. Is this because your Weber was primarily a draughtsman themselves, and the prominence/fame went to G. Stanley Wilson, in whose office Weber worked? On this point, the claim that Wilson was mostly front-of-house and that Weber did the actual designing may be true, but it's quite a "big" claim and would need a good source. It's interesting to note that none of the Wikipedia articles on the "Notable works" appear to mention Weber, apart from that on his own house. Is the claim that Weber did the work the result of discussions with Weber's family?

All in all, I would suggest that, while waiting for a reviewer, you see if you can dig up some solid sources that cover Weber and his work. If you can, that will greatly increase the chances of the draft being approved for publication. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful comments. I appreciate your insights.

I may be able to modify those Ancestry links - they actually point to items in various external archives (newspapers.com, Social Security Administration documents, city directories, and so on). Would that address those issues?

Regarding Weber as the actual designer for G. Stanley Wilson, I have a 1922 letter from Weber to a former employer asking for a letter of recommendation. In it, he says, “Mr. Wilson spends most of his time outside, leaving me to do the designing and run the inside work.” [2]

Could that serve as a source?

Additionally, the historic record shows that Wilson was primarily a home builder and construction supervisor prior to employing Weber, and indeed didn’t acquire his own architect’s license until 1922. Shortly after employing Weber, the work of his office shifted to larger-scale projects: churches, civic buildings, commercial structures, and the final expansion of the Mission Inn hotel. The evidence of Weber as designer of these buildings is apparent by comparing his body of work and his training to Wilson’s work before Weber. Wilson’s house-design/build work is documented in two books by Joan Hall and Esther Klotz (they also have a small section on Weber in one book). I’m open to ideas on how best to provide evidence of all this.

Thanks again. Davestolte (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you are able to convert the material on ancestry.com into what it actually is, i.e., a newspaper, a directory etc., that would be a great improvement. And even better, do you have access to the Hall/Klotz, because they sound like perfect sources? The Weber letter, while definitely useable, is a non-independent primary source, i.e. it’s Weber saying he did all the work while Wilson just schmoozed the clients. Well, he would say that! The most difficult bit is the personal comparison of Wilson’s work pre- and post-Weber’s arrival. That we can’t do. I know William Burges was a more talented architect than George Edmund Street and I believe you can see this by comparing Burges’ failed designs for the Royal Courts of Justice with what Street got to build. But my personal opinion isn’t of interest to Wikipedia - what we would need to make the claim is a respected third party (an architectural critic/historian) to say it. Then we can say “respected critic X says Burges is better than Street”, citing the book/article where they say that. In short, to draft a strong Wikipedia article, we need to leave our own opinions at the door, and reflect what the sources say.

Very happy to assist further if that would be of any help. Just KJP1 ping me. KJP1 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be in touch for sure, You've been very helpful. Davestolte (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thought. The NRHP records for individual buildings may be a valuable resource. The British equivalents are the Cadw and Historic England records which I use a lot. As an example, the NHRP for the Lake Norconia Club gives you 59 detailed pages, [3]. But I don’t see mention of Weber! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there @KJP1 – I made some edits and would appreciate a fresh look at this article. Apologies it took so long, I've been busy writing a biography of Weber and creating a digital archive of the 8000+ photos he took in Europe & North Africa 1931 - 1932! Davestolte (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries - the biography sounds very interesting! I've done a bit of copy-editing, added some blue-links, a couple of sources (one of which you had already), and tagged two areas that I think need citations. The sourcing is certainly improved. But it could do with more. I've added a few possibilities below. Presumably your biographical searches unearthed a few that could be used? I'd also cite the NRHP entries, particularly if they mention Weber. Is their database searchable online? I can't make it work. And does this List of California Historical Landmarks have anything? Best of luck and I hope it gets reviewed soon. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all this. Again, your assistance is wonderful! Davestolte (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible sources

• parsonage to the First Christian Church, Riverside?
• Instagram, but may lead somewhere
• First Presbyterian, Anaheim - this credits Wilson
• Mahogany doors to the Mission Inn, but RS?
• as above

KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @KJP1. The two Mission Inn Foundation newsletters do mention Weber, but there are some inaccuracies / omissions in what they wrote so I'd prefer to not include those. The First Presbyterian in Anaheim was Weber's design for the firm of G. Stanley Wilson, so the thorny issue of attribution rears its head yet again. First Christian Church parsonage pre-dates Wilson & Weber's arrival in Riverside. And the Instagram account for Old Riverside Foundation is run by yours truly and documents my ongoing Weber research (among other topics).

I believe I've rolled in all your edits. What would the next steps be for review and approval to publish? Davestolte (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's looking fine. In my opinion (and I base that in part of having doing a fair amount of Articles for Creation reviewing in the past) I think it is now good to go. Unfortunately, the only next step is to wait. The AfC reviewers, volunteers like all of us, have to cope with a high volume of draft articles. I think the average waiting time is currently around two months, but it could be quicker...or slower! All the best with it, and with the biography. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 thank you again, your help has been invaluable. And now we wait! Davestolte (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 Hi there – just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything to get this article in front of the right people to approve. It's been four months. I can be patient, but also hope I didn't forget to check a box, change a status, or whatever. Davestolte (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox architect

We have an architect specific infobox, if that's of any use here (w:Template:Infobox architect). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata

There is now a Wikidata item for Peter J. Weber (wikidata:Q124822219). I've added the obvious fields. Additional fields and references can be added ad hoc. This can be linked to the article as soon as it is published. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 Done -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Draft has been languishing for several months due to confusion about the submission process (see Talk). The primary author has asked for assistance, which I have now provided. In my view, the article is essentially ready for mainspace – though I'll sit back for a few days to see in anyone has concerns. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sincere apologies if I overlooked something on the submission process, and thanks for fixing it. As to the content, I’d agree it’s good to go. It’s easily Start (actually better, I think) and Weber is Notable. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've run copyvio (2.9%), read most of the sources, etc. In a case like this, who should finish the AfC process? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I did AfC reviewing for a while, and think I technically still qualify, and I've contributed to a few architecture FACs, so think I can recognise a Pass, but I have made a few suggestions such that I'm not sure about independence. If you were happy to approve that would be great. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As most of my edits are purely technical in nature, I think it's okay for me to do it. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Normally I wouldn't do both AfC and review to avoid the appearance of impartiality, but I think this case is a clear exception. Nice article. Thanks for writing it!

Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0Thank you! 75.28.105.5 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)