Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm pretty sure the original donated property that was sold to buy this one is where Kay Bullitt currently lives, and that she intends to will it to the city. If someone can verify that, it should probably be in the article. - Jmabel|Talk18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Historylink article by Becker states that the Henrys donated property at the northwest corner of Harvard and Prospect to the city. 1125 Harvard Ave is on the northwest corner of Harvard and Prospect according to ordinary maps and county records. King County records and the Orbis West archive source in the draft indicate that 1125 Harvard is the Bullit house. Is this OK or do we still need a secondary source for the whole thing? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Critical reviews are always good for expressive works, but I'm having trouble summarizing this neutrally. The writer said something about why the Capitol Hill Branch's architecture is good and the Beacon Hill branch is bad (I think). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
The article's quip about Capitol Hill's branch isn't really worth including. The rest of it reads like a rant about race more than a critique of architecture, so I would be hesitant to even include it in the Beacon Hill article. SounderBruce02:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply