Talk:Jackson Boulevard District and Extension

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Cook County, Illinois may be able to help!

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

1501-1509 Jackson[edit]

While B.F. Ferguson, the lumber merchant, was the first occupant of 1501, the three townhouses that occupy the three lots WERE NOT built by him. Rick lightburn (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring! I can't read the first of two references supporting that item within the article, but based on the 2nd reference i think it is okay to change the wording from, essentially, "was built by" to "was commissioned by". It wasn't my writing, but I think it was not actually wrong to say "was built by", loosely, as meaning that the building work was arranged, contracted for, etc. But especially if it reads wrong to you, then by all means let's try to state it more precisely. Is this now okay? If you think of a better wording based on the sources available, or if you can add a different source, please do edit. --do ncr am 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]