Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4

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 promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009 [1].

Crown Fountain[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured article because we have attempted to address the concerns of prior WP:FACs and hope to make progress toward WP:CHIFTD. Namely, Torsodog has provided a video which eliminated the need for a series of FU images. We are willing to discuss any further image removals and address other concerns that arise. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this would be the first WP:FA for WP:GLASS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last month both Ruhrfisch and Giants2008 reviewed this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed what you wanted. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, except that the wrong syntax was used for the lead image so its alt text didn't work. You can check this sort of thing by clicking on the image's properties with your browser after making your edits. Also, since it's the lead image for a weird-looking object, there's a special obligation to describe the visual appearance to the visually impaired, so I added more detail as I was fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I supported last time< & still think it meets FA standards. Looking at it again, the "video production" section could be made clearer as to the total time time taken per face, and what the water does when. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have revised the text based on my interpretation of conflicting information in the source, which at one point suggests that most of the video is at one-third playback and another saying that the entire 5-minute videos are alterations of an original 80-second video. If you feel I have misinterpreted the source let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the source, & I don't necessarily see "conflicting information" there. It just isn't clear. Is 5 minutes in the section? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source says the following things:
  • And with the unique treatment Plensa was after -- vividly alive, yet slowed down to one-third normal speed
  • And time had to be stretched too. "Jaume's original idea was that each person would be on the screen for 13 minutes -- thank God we were able to talk him out of it," says Manning. "It's five minutes now." So Manning devised a scheme in which his team could shoot each person for only 80 seconds, then turn that it into five minutes. Each chunk, or sequence, was synchronized to match the mechanism of the fountain, for a total of five minutes for each face. "The period leading up to the mouth opening gets stretched in order to make it last four minutes, then there's another section that gets stretched to make it last 15 seconds, and then when the mouth is actually opened that gets stretched to make it last exactly 30 seconds. And then, finally, there's a smile at the end that gets stretched to make it last 15."
Now the text says the following: The basic 80-second videos are played at one-third speed, running for a total of 4 minutes. Then there is another subsequent segment where the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a section with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a smile after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see you have just added the "4 minutes" bit. But don't expect the reader to do maths; say it's a 5 minute sequence somewhere. And how does the water running down the face fit in? Is that all the time? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found another quote that helps me make sense of the time totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, that's much clearer, & I see the "fountain" sub-section too. Move to
  • Support per above (unless anything drastic comes up below). Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Gave it a partial look at the peer review, and am picking up where I left off. Found a few picky things, but the article is in fairly good shape overall.
  • "The process used sand and soda ash heated to a temperaure of 2,600 F and "gathered" with large clay ball resembling a honey dipper." Should it be "a large clay ball"?
  • "The structure was a challenge. At first, they had considered switching to plastic blocks". Is "they" supposed to refer to the design team? If so, the first part of this could be changed to say so for clarity.
  • Operation: "A Barco show controller selects the sequence of faces one at a time and also determines a random tower lighting selection...". Redundant word that can safely be chopped.
  • Controversies: "The city claimed the cameras, similar to those used throughout city...". Add "the" before second "city".
  • Critical reception: Double-check the spelling of jumbotron. I think there are a couple of capital letters in it.
  • Is "juxtapposed" a typo? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support pending media review. Article seems to be pretty well-written and well-sourced. There are a few non-free media files included, so I want to see a completed image review before fully supporting. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on copyedit by Unschool (talk · contribs)
Hmmm. Does this work like a regular discussion page? Am I to respond with my justifications, or am I to make corrections? I shall presume that I should reply to each point. Unschool
Typically, you would place comments for me the nominator. However, since you jumped in and edited without commentary, I am just noting contentious actions here because discussion might evolve and it should be recorded here as part of the summary of discussions for the promotion consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed the detail of the specific dates that the fountain is open from the article (May 1 to approximately October 31).
I suppose the detail should not have been removed from the article. If it hasn't yet been restored, I will do so. However, I do not believe it belongs in the lead; it's simply unnecessary detail. I'll find an appropriate place for it in the body.Unschool
It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed the following from the main body of the article (Crown Fountain was the most controversial of all the Millennium Park features.)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I did, and I think the article is better for it. I placed the sentence in the lead, where it fit beautifully, and the paragraph whence it came is literally undamaged by the removal. That sentence was a major point of the article, and as such it belonged in the lead. Unschool 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, everyone, I didn't (and still don't, really) understand the process around here. Yes, I am done with the article; I just touched it up a bit and then moved on. Didn't realize I was gumming up the works around here. Unschool 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to strike out some lines? Do I strike out everything I wrote, and/or the replies to what I wrote, or what? Unschool 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike any line that you think has been resolved. Actually, those are my comments and questions to you, so I strike.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (if it's okay to put a question here)

No, it doesn't seem any higher resolution that the one now on there.Unschool
This one is pretty good, probably gives the best image of the glass brick towers themselves. Unschool
I really like the crowds around the fountain in this one; the only thing that keeps this from being my only choice is the (really picky point here) fact that the fountain isn't lined up so well with the lips. Unschool
No way. Unschool
This one is pretty good, too. Unschool
I'd be okay with any of the three of which I spoke positively: wildcat dunny, sergemelki, or albany tim. Unschool 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is going to be reviewed by an image specialist. If I recall, there may be some limitations regarding the resolution of fair use images. So the one above that you ruled out for lack of resolution might need to be reconsidered for its clarity and vibrance. We might have to scale back any selection to a modest resolution to keep in line with WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Tony is right. Since these images are used under fair use, we cannot use the highest resolutions available to us. If you still want to change out the image, we can, but I would not use any image higher than the "medium" setting on flickr. I personally don't have a problem with the infobox image, but if everyone agrees that another one is better, I can switch it out. --TorsodogTalk 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I've got a lot to learn about that stuff. Thanks for trying. Unschool 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I have obtained consent and have swapped out the offending image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Opposing towers that are 50 feet (15 m) tall represent Plensa's theme dualism at night facing north with water cascading|alt=Night view of the fountain shows water cascading, ground lighting and face video" This caption is a bit of a run-on. If it's a sentence, it should have a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a beautifully done article. I enjoyed reading it, found it informative and interesting. I had a few comments on the section on video photography, mainly related to prose. It was the only part that I found confusing. I've included my suggestions in bold.

About Approximately 75 ethnic, social, and religious Chicago organizations were asked to provide candidates whose faces would be to be photographed for integration into the fountain.'[29] The subjects for the faces were chosen from local schools, churches and community groups, and filming began in 2001 at the downtown campus of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). The SAIC students filmed their subjects with a $100,000 high-definition HDW-F900 video camera, the same model as those used in the production of the three Star Wars prequels.[18][30] About 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's level course in public art for the project.[29] ...
Each face appears on the sculpture for a total of 5 minutes using various parts of 80-second videos.[18](???) A 40-second section is played at one-third speed forward and backward, running for a total of 4 minutes.[10] Then, there is a subsequent 15 second segment where in which the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a 30 second section in which the water appears to spout from the open mouth with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a 15 second smile. after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.[18] Of the original 1,051 subjects filmed, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.[10] Originally, the set of images was presumed to be the beginning of a work in progress, but now no additional videos are planned.[29 ]

In the 2nd paragraph, I don't understand the first sentence. I've suggested some other tweaks to help the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence means that the SAIC students shot each subject for 80 seconds. These 80 seconds are used to produce five minutes of video as the remainder of the paragraph details. I am not exactly sure where you are confused and where I have been unclear. I think we have the first paragraph down. Please reconsider the second paragraph given this explanation. I had trouble with the prior instructions because your wishes for the 2nd paragraph were not as clear as the first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I added some commas and a couple of words to help the clarity. See if that works for you. Plus changed "now" to as of 2009. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one revision to clarify that the last segment is also extended. Everything else is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, nice work! Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-free video is really not a good thing. I advise replacing it with a single image in the infobox. I strongly oppose promotion while the video remains. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image reviewer just approved this by clipping this down from 50 seconds to what he/she determined to be an acceptable amount of non-free content. The understanding of this article is somewhat dependent on this two second video clip. Note that this has replaced four images (a main image and a sequence of three images) that were in the article at FAC3. Is it possible that you could talk to the very conservative image reviewer Elcobbola (talk · contribs) and come to an agreement on some sort of compromise. I am willing to put an image as the main image and move the video down to the body of the article, but am not sure what is best since the image reviewer opposed the redundancy of the image and the video and asked us to remove the image. In short your opposition is asking us to undo what has been done by and for the image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm asking you to remove the non-free video. This is a horrible slippery slope that we don't want to get ourselves involved with. Why is a single image not acceptable? A single frame from that video surely illustrates the work of art in a satisfactory way? Why do we need a video at all? J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The video replaces a sequence of exemplifying detail shown in the Crown_Fountain#Video_production and Crown_Fountain#Video_sculpture sections so that the reader could see the face, the puckering and the spouting. I am not an expert on image policy. Could you talk to Elcobbola (talk · contribs). I will do whatever the two of you agree to as a solution since I would revert to the sequence of non-free images. This is a rare video sculpture and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) thought a short video clip would help the reader. I guess the thinking was that a video of a video sculpture might be a rare exception for non-free video content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Elcobbola seems to concede on his own talk page that your request is reasonable. I have reverted to the still image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that lead image would have to be considered a derivative work, and therefore non-free. There is no freedom of panorama for works of art of this sort in the United States. A quick look at the other images makes me think that they are not derivative works, but further review of the "other fountains" may be needed. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. so you still have the strong oppose stated and no clear directive. I await your further comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you are deliberating on the inclusion of the other fountains. You may remove them if you feel that is necessary and then hopefully you can strike your oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I said that I "strongly oppose promotion while the video remains", and the video has now been removed. So no, I no longer strongly oppose. I will take a deeper look at the images now. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG needs fixing up- it cannot be both freely licensed and non-free. In this case, it seems it is non-free, although details about the author of the photo itself is, naturally, useful. File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg has an in-image caption that needs to be cropped. I am a little concerned about the copyright of the other fountains, but I don't want to look into that right now. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have cropped and replaced File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Feel free to correct any misunderstanding that I have about licensing, but wrt File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG, I believe that there are two licenses. The photographer may freely release his photographic copyright of a non-free image giving rise to both a free and a non-free license.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, but for Wikipedia's purposes, this image is non-free. Mention that you are the photographer and that you release the image under (whatever), but the only tag on the image page should be the non-free one. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have been through this debate on many modern sculptures with many image reviewers and have been told by many people that I must release my photographic copyright. I have reworded and rearranged significantly. Is this change palatable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No. Quite simply, this image is non-free. Yes, mention in the sourcing that you took the image and you are releasing it under whatever, but the free license templates should not be there. No image should be tagged as both free and non-free. They are mutually exclusive. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (from Ruhrfisch) In the interest of full disclosure, I made the map and have made some edits here (mostly during a previous FAC, plus some now). My previous concern at FAC was with the number of non-free images and that has clearly been addressed here. I have a few questions / quibbles (that do not detract from my support):

  • This sentence After several dozen glass manufacuturing firms were interviewed, L. E. Smith Glass Company emerged as the company to produce 22,500 glass blocks near the upward bound for the size of press glass formed from hand poured molten glass and cast iron molds.[36] would "upper limit" or perhaps "upper boundary" make more sense than "upward bound"? Also shouldn't it be "hand-poured" (with a hyphen)?
  • Confusing - I think the second "and" should be "or" and a word seems to be missing The individual grids are 5 feet (1.5 m) tall and either 16 feet (4.9 m) and [or?] 23 feet (7.0 m) [wide? - missing word] with cell capacity of an average of 250 blocks.[38]
    • Yes either goes along with or. I presume the missing word is wide. I do not have the source with me. I will put in wide for now. Next time I am at my local library, I will check.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparent contradiction: In the Selection of artist section it reads The installation is a video sculpture, commissioned to operate thirty years.[21] but in the Construction and engineering section it says The electronics were designed to be adaptable to the time of day, weather and season and to meet the desired century-long longevity and dependability objectives.[3] Which is it (30 years or 100)?
    • These are actually complimentary and not contradictory. As I understand it the commission means that Plensa was chosen to design something that would last 30 years. Plensa and the designers then set a 100 year design objective and the electronics were designed to meet that specification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have both English and metric units The water in the reflecting pool has a depth of about 1/3 of a centimeter.[55]
  • Would this Traditional fountains such as these other Chicago fountains discourage viewer touching;... be clearer as something like These other Chicago fountains are traditional in that they discourage viewer touching;...?

I have to go now, may have a few more quibbles, but this is much improved and worthy of FA status. Well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with quibbles and have made a few more copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Support

The article is almost there, but some deficiencies remain, and these need to be removed. There seems to be too much Wikilinking, too much jargon, and too many peacock terms than befits a featured article. I think this can be fixed in short order, a day or two max. Here are some examples:

You get the idea. Please simplify, remove excessive Wikilinks, jargon, and peacocky terms. I will then be delighted to support the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to repeat "fountain," that is fine, but you do need to give some sense in the lead sentence that water is an essential feature of this interactivity. As for the Loop, I doubt if a new reader is going to gain much essential knowledge by being distracted in the very first sentence and sent off on a wild goose chase for the "Loop" in the Community areas of Chicago page. The Chicago Loop page is enough; it has a map which shows where it sits in relation to the city. The reader doesn't need to be saddled with additional info that the Loop is community area number 32 etc. etc. or even that Chicago has "community areas." Perhaps, something along the lines of,

"Crown Fountain in Chicago is a work of public art that combines interactive aquatic play and video sculpture. The park is located in the city's new Millennium Park, between Lake Michigan and the Loop central business district."

In any case, since your article is almost there, and since I'm strapped for time, I'm changing my vote to a support. Although I am not entirely happy with the lead and the first subsection after that, I have to say the rest of the article is very well written and packed with a lot of details. Congrats! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 September 2009 (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/Crown_Fountain/archive4&oldid=1136098298"