Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:04, 2 September 2008 [1].

Cloud Gate[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) Torsodog (talk · contribs)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent WP:PR, WP:GAR, and talk page concerns. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 17 "Inside a Cloud" needs a publisher. Also is this the artists website?
    • It may be his website. This fact is not important for establishing notability. It is just a small fact that if necessary could be excised from the article. It provides some context by showing photographs of this subject have been commissioned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably need to track down who is behind the site to determine its reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • http://www.onewallaway.com/ is the home of the site. However, it bounces to http://www.onewallaway.com/jtvr.html. I just sent an email to them to find out whose site it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got the following reply "Onewallaway.com is my personal website on which I present my photographic work. Currently, photographs from the series "One Wall Away, Chicago's Hidden Spaces" are on display in the lobby of the Sears Tower in Chicago."-Jan Theun van Rees--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd drop the fact, personally. It's a borderline source, but if you want to leave it in, I'd leave this source out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not sure I understand the alternative. What does "leave this source out for other reviewers to decide for themselves" mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It means I won't strike the concern and it would be visible and still listed as a concern for all other reviewers to decide if it's a major concern for them or not. They'd see your replies and judge the merits on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, you don't put all capitals in link titles.
  • Current ref 16 "Jan Theun van Rees..." is lacking a publisher and author.
  • The Financial Times footnote needs to note that registration is required to see the article.
  • Current ref 29 (Public Building Commission of Chicago) is lacking a last accessdate
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the footnotes, examples include (but not limited to) USGNN, etc.
  • Current ref 40 "Copyright of public space" is lacking a publisher. Also, this looks like a blog, what makes it reliable?
Otherwise, sources look good. The links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images Oppose due to overuse of fair use images

  • Image:The cloud gate'.jpg - This image needs a fair use rationale for the Cloud Gate article.
  • Image:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg - This needs a fair use rationale since it shows the sculpture.
  • Image:Pre-buffing Bean'.jpg - The seams are very hard to see in this image - I don't think this justifies fair use, especially since there is an interior image that shows the seams as well as a completely different view of the sculpture.
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) in winter'.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Cloud Gate article and frankly I don't see how one could be written. We already have a good shot of the sculpture in the infobox. We hardly need another one.
    • I do not understand how this sculpture in the winter is not describing something new to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree with Awadewit on this image. It is really adding nothing new to the article, as we already have two shots of the east and west sides (both very important images when it comes to illustrating the sculpture). This one however, is simply a repeat of the east shot except with some snow on it. I cannot see a justifiable fair use rational being written for it. --TorsodogTalk 07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. I guess I think it is a cool shot showing the dusk winter view, but in the interests of FU, I consent to its removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
    • The caption demonstrates a very important artistic feature along with the next one at issue. I'll try to rewrite the FUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the very important artistic feature? It is still not explained. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Artistically when you can see the same images reflecting on the surface from both the east and the west isn't that almost magical artistically. It borders on unbelievable or at least surprising. We have the image to document this odd feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg - "Vivid illustration" is not a strong enough reason for fair use inclusion (see WP:NFCC #8) - this also replicates images already in the article and is probably unnecessary.
  • Image:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg - This image requires a fair use rationale as it carries a copyright. Again, while it would be nice to have such an image in the article (to show how the sculpture is situated in its environment), we already have too many fair use images in the article.
    • It does not seem to carry a copyright that requires fair use, just credit. I would prefer the image it was swapped for showing the Plaza behind the ice rink however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Republication rights demand fair use - this is still under copyright. Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This image is hosted on the Commons. The license used is within the acceptable free licenses that the Commons allows. Unless you feel that the Commons is remiss to host this image there is no need for a fair use claim. —Jeremy (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was under the impression that since republication rights can be changed at any moment, fair use is required, but I will check that again. Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has far too many fair use images. We have to remove some of them. Unfortunately, we cannot have a shot of the sculpture from every angle. Remember, that fair use is not a legal doctrine upheld throughout the world. Any CD versions of Wikipedia or print versions will not have any of these fair use images. It behooves us to have free images and to restrict our use of fair use images for these reasons. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article currently has (what would amount to) six fair use images. This is far too many. I would suggest leaving the two in the infobox (if we can come up with stronger rationales) and the seam/omphalos image. I would suggest deleting the park, pre-buffing, and winter images. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced that going with a count is proper. The last two modern art FAs passed with seven images each (counting collage images separately). However, you can remove any image that will explain to the reader where the sculpture is if you think it is preferable unless you are willing to allow an image to depict a redirect. There is no need to show the reader anything that would help them understand where the sculpture is just because we have the images since we tell them in the text. That leaves us the winter image and the pre-buffing images. I don't think it is clear how much the work that we describe in the text needed to be done to complete the sculpture without either image. I am not comfortable removing either image without someone from WP:WPVA convincing me that not much is lost. As far as the winter image goes, I think it is extremely different from the other fair weather image and am not sure why it does not pass as minimal usage to depict a different part of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of my majors as an undergraduate was art history, so I do really sympathize with your predicament here, but I really don't think we can justify any more than these three legally. Unfortunately, the law does not always take aesthetics into consideration. :( Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess based on having created Haystacks (Monet) and a few things I picked up at the Art Institute of Chicago, I felt variation due to change in seasons was a more important artistic theme in all other art than it may truly be. I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you are going to oppose based on number of fair use images can you make some statement about your conclusion in this matter. Your complaint is semi-unactionable since there seem to be only two images at issue and you don't provide much current discourse on either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize I forgot to cross one image out before. My opposition is based on the remaining image, which shows something that another fair use image already shows - the seams. There is no reason to have two fair use images showing the same thing. I have already explained that I believe the image showing the omphalos and the seams is the best one because it combines two concepts. Having a second image is unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Basically, the article has two photos of the current completed work (an east and a west) and two images of the work in process (an interior and an exterior). I feel both pairs of images are important to the article and unless there is a WP:WIAFA or WP:NFCC concern. I believe this still upholds the WP:NFCC standard of NFCC 8. I think the reader would not understand the need for the fuss of closing the sculpture for two years to buff it if they could not see how much less striking the exterior was before all the work that is elaborately detailed. I have asked two other discussants in this FAC to give an opinion on this matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent)REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION at 21:23, 23 August 2008 User:Awadewit argued against saying the article has far too many images. At 23:48, 29 August 2008 he opposed for too many images. Upon reconsideration at 15:15, 30 August 2008 and 15:14, 30 August 2008 it seems he is saying he opposes because the article has one too many image. Am I understanding this opposition correctly? This just seems odd to me after all the progress that was made. One is free to oppose on whatever grounds one likes, but this seems to be a very slippery slope.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, progress has been made, but not enough. I do not believe that this article meets criteria 3 because I believe that we do not need two images showing the seams (in process shots). We discussed this but a satisfactory conclusion was not reached - that is why I am opposing. Opposing on images is a legitimate oppose, by the way. I am not going to repeat this explanation again. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand Awadewit's opposition to using both seam images, but as the primary editor of this article, I also understand how important it is to see the Cloud Gate with its seams, as the public saw the sculpture like that for almost a year (on top of it being tented for almost a year BECAUSE of the seams). I've been trying to come up with a solution or compromise to this problem. One compromise I have come up with is removing the image of of the entire sculpture showing the seams and replacing it with an image of the sculpture tented (either partially or entirely). Something like this. Would this be a suitable compromise? --TorsodogTalk 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have consent for any such images and would it be considered fair use when it is largely covered? It is almost as good a depiction of the problem and so would sort of be a solution depending on how fair use is affected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the moment, I do not have consent for any such images, but if this is a suitable compromise/does not require fair use, I will actively pursue that image or one similar to it. --TorsodogTalk 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have copied the challenged image to AT&T Plaza while we await somee decision on fair use of the proposed image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The proposed alternative would also be a fair use image. I'm afraid that I just do not see the necessity of having two images depicting the sculpture under construction. Please read WP:NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - This article already has an image that shows the sculpture under construction and there is no significant information that is being added by the second image. Each and every fair use image has to have a strong fair use rationale so that Wikipedia can protect itself from lawsuits. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose—<sigh>There's this overwhelming sense of deja vue: nothing ever changes; no one learns from past comments; the article is just shoved in here before it's ready. As I pointed out last time, it's just plain unfair to other nominators, the reviewers, and the director.

  • Breach of WP:CONTEXT, first bullet point, explicated in the footnote. Who on earth you think wants to click on "feet" and "m" I can't fathom. Breach of the same section in the linking of the name of a commonly known anglophone country.
    • I continue to disagree with linkages within the {{convert}} template. I link all measurements upon first usage regardless of commonness. This will always lead you and I to quibble about conversions for things like ft/m. That is my stylistic choice. I will just say that is my stylistic choice. As for the United States, I have moved the linked usage to the infobox and made it unlinked in the text. I can go along with you on this stylistic choice you have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's nice and easy: it simply won't be promoted, since you refuse to fix the breach of the style guidelines (Criterion 2).
  • MoS breach in year ranges: en dash required—we should not have to point this out; do you simply ignore the comments from countless previous nomination pages?
  • Linking of "sculpture": breach of WP:MOSLINK—"In general, do not create links to the following:.. Plain English words". If the reader doesn't know what the word means, they should learn English. "Theme" is just too vague to bother us with a link. It's distracting and a breach. If you insist on ignoring WP's styleguides on linking, don't bother nominating articles for featured status.
    • The term sculpture may be common enough to warrant your objection. However, that fact that a term is vague is support for linkage to a separate article which explains the term in greater detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and visitors are invited to walk around and under Cloud Gate's 12-foot (3.7 m)-high arch"—I explicitly advised last time on how to recast this gobbledygook kind of expression, yet you ignore the advice. "Cloud Gate's arch, which is 12 feet (3.7 m) high". Avoid triple adjectives that involve parenthetical conversions—they're ugly to look at and bumpy to read. Are visitors invited explicitly in a written sign? Sounds like it.
  • Comma after "themes" would be nice.
    • Glad to see we have gotten you converted from your whatseewhosy attitude about commas between conjoined independent phrases in the last FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a matter of converting Tony's attitude; some style guides stress commas after all conjoined independent clauses, but it's not uncommon to see the comma omitted for short sentences. Granted, I prefer to use commas for all cases, but the opposite is also understandable. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not worried about Tony's attitude in general. The comment was more of a statement about a comment he made in my last FAC, which gave the impression of lack of understanding of what conjoining was and grammatical propriety surrounding it. He is more often than not spot on in his grammatical concerns. He just made me feel that using a comma between conjoined independent clauses was something only done on Mars in the last FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "great" is a subjective and vague word: it is not encyclopedic. "photo taking" needs a hyphen.

I recommend, again, that you withdraw this nomination and prepare it properly. I'm reading no further than two paragraphs until it's in a respectable shape. Get as angry as you like—that will simply demonstrate the veracity of what I'm saying. Tony (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • General ReplyAs for your oppose, thanks for your opinion. As for your death sentence on the candidacy, it is inappropriate. The article has been through WP:PR and WP:GAR where we have accepted feedback from a variety of editors. We have spent time with the article and are not throwing slop out here for review. Between our editorial efforts and two distinct review processes, I think the article has earned the priviledge of wider review and feedback from WP:FAC. Unless and until those processes work better, a few articles like this may appear here. I apologize if it bothers you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific reply: Well, I hope the Oppose, and those of other reviewers, isn't a bother you. But our patience is wearing thin, being used as some kind of cheap (free) article-improvement service when other nominations are more deserving, since their editors are willing to learn from the process and respond by working with us rather than fighting us. You're going to find increasingly that reviewers will oppose more readily under these circumstances, and they will do so with the full support of the criteria. Tony (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every type of review process is a free improvement service. However, so is every editorial process. I.E., my article creation and editing is also a free improvements service. I appreciate all feedback. I hope you appreciate all my editorial efforts, which are also free.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a huge fan of one sentence paagraphs. Please merge them into another. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither; I guess you're talking about the paragraphs at the end of "Exterior maintenance"? At least, those are what I am referring to; I think they should be merged. Gary King (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have merged them. Any thoughts on what to do with the last two cleanup sentences?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which ones? Looks good to me now. Why would you want to have the redirection notice for "Ameritech Plaza" when there's nothing more to say? Some articles have dozens of redirects to them but not all of them are listed – only the ones that have disambiguation pages are listed. Gary King (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this comment about the redirect notice. Ameritech Plaza never redirected to anything else. There is no real need to alert readers that they are being redirected to this page because, to my knowledge, there is no other Ameritech Plaza and they were most likely looking for this page. --TorsodogTalk 06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Some things I noticed in the lead alone. I suggest getting some fresh eyes to copyedit the whole thing.
  • I understand that you dearly love your images—and I'm not going to fuss over them. But are two pictures of the same thing needed in the infobox? It took me a while to figure out the difference between the two.
  • Inspired by liquid mercury, it is one of the most popular sculptures in the United States. Even though it's in the lead, it needs source to not be POV.
    • There are two styles of lead (cited and uncited). Half and half is the problem. A fully uncited lead is O.K. if all claims in the lead are properly cited in the text. This is common FAC convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the underside of the sculpture is the "omphalos", a concave chamber that dramatically warps and multiplies reflections. Remove "dramatically".
  • The sculpture was the result of a design competition. Somewhat of a cliffhanger. What competition?
  • Debold everything in the lead except for Cloud Gate and The Bean.
  • Eventually, a feasible method was determined, but the sculpture fell well behind schedule and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion and a final unveiling. Needs to be worded better. As an example: "unveiled...for a final unveiling".–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does anyone have a suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about Eventually, a feasible method was found, but the sculpture fell behind schedule, and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion? It cuts out a small bit of information, but it increases readability significantly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia Too many basic grammar and formatting issues.

  • 1000 years - commas in large numbers.
  • Introduce Norman Foster so that his disbelief means something in context.
  • Wikilinking needs work: why link 'gate' but not 'tie rod'?
  • began the preparations to begin working on the structure's outer shell. - began to begin to begin.
  • About a third of plates, along with the entire interior structure, - missing article.
  • The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% - what does 'polished 98%' mean?
  • ...were fabricated in Oakland and shipped to Chicago. The plates were covered with protective white film and polished 98% before being sent to Chicago via trucks. Once in Chicago, - I get it, they went to Chicago.
  • Unnecessary capitalization in the table (Equipment Used).
  • Why use scare quotes on "omphalos" throughout? For that matter, they're not even used consistently throughout.
  • Inconsistent use of serial commas, especially in the Praise section.
  • The sculpture contributed to Millennium Park being named - noun + ing ugliness.
  • On both occasions Cloud Gate was the focus of attention as the primary precluded attraction. - what is precluded supposed to be here?
  • Kapoor has a reputation for producing work in urban settings at a magnitude of size and scale that create spectacles - subject verb disagreement.
  • This is why removing all the seams from Cloud Gate was necessary - 'this is' is preaching to the audience.
  • Kapoor's objects often aim at evoking immateriality and the "spiritual" - unnecessary scare quotes.
  • Kapoor explores the theme of ambiguity with his work that places the viewer in a state of "in-betweenness." - logical quotation.
  • with such dualities as solidity-emptiness or reality-reflection, which in turn allude to such paired opposites as flesh-spirit, the here-the beyond, east-west, sky-earth - endashes here, not hyphens.
  • concave points of focus that invites the entry of visitors and multiplies their images when they are positioned correctly. - subject verb disagreement.
  • reflections of a larger than life size scale - hyphens for compound modifier.
  • The reflections from the sculpture distorts the entire skyline of the city. - subject verb disagreement.
  • This sculpture is similar to much of Kapoor's previous works - many works, not much works.
  • By reflecting the sky, visiting and non-visiting pedestrians, and surrounding architecture, viewers are limited to partial comprehension at any time. - misplaced modifier: viewers don't reflect the sky.
  • (registration require for entire article) - typo; required.
  • When footnote links are not in html format, the format needs to be indicated, be it through using the format= parameter in {{cite web}} or manually typed.

This still needs significant prose work; I've only highlighted some issues. Maralia (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey thanks for the critical eye. We have needed a review like that to improve the article instead of fight about images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cloud_Gate/archive1&oldid=1126593642"