Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshall Field and Company Building/archive1

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 16:37, 14 April 2008.

Marshall Field and Company Building

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is an interesting and historic building that has a well-cited story and many complimentary images. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes http://www.pdxhistory.com/ reliable?
- This is not a wiki, but I am not sure of the credentials of this guy. It seems to be the creation of a guy who has interest, time and resources to create a portland portal of sorts. I may have to fold on this one. I need some opinions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Likewise http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/4918.html?~~
- See http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/aboutncn.html and http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/aboutncc.html seems to be the online version of a legitimate publication and company.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me blind, I could not find that earlier. Resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this http://chicago.urban-history.org/mainmenu.shtml?
- See http://chicago.urban-history.org/int/about.shtml This guy is a local Chicago history buff who has been online for eleven years at this site. He is as reliable as any other Ph.D. history buff we would cite as a secondary source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://search.cityguide.aol.com/chicago/entertainment/marshall-fields-state-street-holiday-window-display/e-2194859?
- AOL is no wiki. It says "From the editors".=RS--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who are the editors? AOL has different levels of folks involved. In years past, you could become a "moderator" and help out without actually being an employee. I'm wondering if this was a staff writer or if it was a volunteer editor, or what. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And http://chicagoist.com/?
- Is this a Chicago wiki? Maybe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can remove this ref without losing anything.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion was that it was a local weekly newspaper, and was really expecting you to tell me that. Kinda like Village Voice but for Chicago.

the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short I am not sure about two refs, but only one is essential to the current article. I don't have much invested in this nomination yet and would gladly either nominate Bob Chappuis or renominate Jack Kemp in its place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement in the writing, but needs polishing still. Here are examples, just in one sentence.
- "The 12-story granite building was built in stages between 1892 and 1914.[15][10] The building was built on a six partition block with sections that were added to the building in 1902, 1906, 1907, and 1914.[9][10] The two primary sections along State Street (The north building built in 1902 and the south in 1907) were designed by Charles B. Atwood (before his death) at D. H. Burnham & Company." "Six partition block"—something missing? Building ... built ... building ... built ... building built .... Do watch the repetitions in your writing. And who'd have guess Atwood would have designed it before he died? Not from the spirit world? Tony (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I have addressed this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rejoinder—Nope, that was just an example. By "needs polishing", I wasn't referring not just to that sentence, but to the text as a whole. Can you find someone else to sift through it? Tony (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I didn't intend to oppose, but the magnitude of criterion three issues is somewhat overwhelming:
- Image:Potter Palmer.jpg and Image:Marshall field interior.jpg must have sources per WP:IUP.
  - I have requested sources from the uploaders.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Chicago018.jpg, Image:Walnut room.jpg, Image:Chicago020.jpg and Image:Chicago021.jpg cannot be used. Per their source’s page use is allowed for “non-profit people or organizations” (i.e. non-commercial use). Per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo, we can’t use these.
  - Do you see a webmaster email address for an image licensing request? Maybe I am blind, but I do not see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, it's here ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just emailed a request (and copied permissions).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        He disagrees with the licensing policy so I will remove the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Image:170659629 73495525d2.jpg has a non-commercial and no-derivates provision to its CC license at Flickr. We cannot use this per the same policies/Jimbo in the previous bullet.~~
  - Removed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The apparent function of Image:0609Departments 411 06 0.jpg is to provide an example of use in pop culture. Why is a fair use image necessary to convey this meaning (WP:NFCC#3A)? Isn't prose sufficient? What is the significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8), especially with a free clock image to the right?
  - The subject is not the clock, but the Rockwell painting in this part of the article and as such free use is allowable unless a separate article exists for the image, as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What criterion gave you that impression? Lack of a more focused article doesn't really give the image a free pass. To use FU images, they need to be both necessary (NFCC#3A) and significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8). How does this image meet those two thresholds? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The questions is whether the free use clock image is a valid substitute for the fair use Rockwell painting. If the subject were a clock, the answer would be no. However, the subject is the painting. In fact, there are two interesting elements of the story. 1.)Which of the two matching clocks is it. 2.)What is the painting that has caused such serious corporate actions and undergone a series of changes of provenance. It is not the clock that is relevant here but the painting that is necessary for these explanations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t believe that Image:0609Departments 411 01 0.jpg is actually PD. For the sake of argument, lets ignore that the asserted dates are not necessarily publishing dates and assume each individual image is actually PD. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. sets forth that exact copies of PD images cannot be copyrighted. This image, however, does not constitute an exact copy, as the author made conscious decisions in the selection of those particular images, the arrangement thereof and the addition of a timeline. I would argue that it passes Threshold of originality and is, therefore, not PD and needs proper attribution.
  - Is it required to reveal the source images to make such an originality claim so that others can use the sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, an original work is an original work regardless of source elements. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there something that makes you beleive that these images were put together after 1923?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The image is from a 2006 magazine article. Other images in the article are visually similar (and I don't just mean of the same building), one of which has a contemporary date (2006) in the same font/format. The onus is really on the uploader to support PD; I just don't see sufficient support. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Image sandwiching issues in the lead; see WP:MOS#Images~~. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shrunk the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Size is somewhat secondary. Shrinking indeed reduces the sandwiching, but it still remains. Is it necessary to have a company name plaque in that location? Is there any precedent? MOS aside, the position at the top of the lead is, for me anyway, distracting. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it's clearly specified at either WP:MOS#Images or WP:LEAD; we don't start articles with left-aligned images, and it shouldn't be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        O.K. I have rearranged the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender/withdrawal - SandyGeorgia and Raul654. I surrender on this one. Why don't you close it so I can get something else in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will archive it today; you might consider peer review for future articles which need sourcing, MoS and copyediting attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 April 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.