Steve,
Yes, I noticed that there was no mention of the architect and that got me wondering why.
My best guess is that discussing the details of how a golf course was designed on 1917 was probably FAR less important then compared to the actual description of this relatively new and strange game called golf.
In other words, if there was a general widespread fascination in 1917 with who was building what courses, how their styles varied, etc., the writer would surely have discussed Raynor.
But in 1917, Raynor and Tilly and Ross, etc etc were still early in the process of developing their styles, and building the courses that would EVENTUALLY define them. CBM may have created the term "golf course architect" but that does not mean others saw the importance of it in 1917. You agree?
The absence of the architect, therefore, says a lot about how the "profession" of golf course architect was perceived in 1917. It had a few years to go before a writer covering a new course opening would naturally include the archy, and would instead focus more on the golfing ability of the pro Robert White and the "things" that occurred in this odd Scotish game that had invaded America. If we assume that the vast majority of the Eagle's readers did not play golf, and the writer is simply trying to write an article that will capture the interest of the average reader, including Raynor as the arcihtecht would add little to this effort.