Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive1

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 18:32, 1 January 2008.

[edit] Crown Fountain

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was promptly promoted to WP:GA when it was nominated and remained quite stable thereafter. I have recently learned how to research the New York Times archives and have expanded the article to something that represents the fountain fairly completely, IMO. I think it is a very fine article now with great detail and breadth. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Objection Copy-edit Readthrough please?
    "in addition to an artistic structure These children made" missing a period...
    "Unlit sculpture. (This actually happens every five minutes.)" - rephrase caption removing parenthesis in a manner such as "The sculpture is unlit every five minutes"
    --Keerllston 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I have cleaned up both of these issues and am doing a general once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not informed as to your expertise in copy-editing - might I suggest recruiting a copy-editor?--Keerllston 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I gave it a once again once over. It should be improved. I hope you can support now or at least not oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. I think the article still needs a little work. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.
    • The lead is not supposed to contain information that is not in the body of the article; it should only be a summary of what is already there. The information that is currently in the first paragraph of the lead does not appear anywhere in the body of the article.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Prose issues:
      • I don't like this sentence: "The fountain is known for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park both from the academic perspective of trained architects and from the human perspective of the ordinary city residents and visitors" It seems a little pretentious; I would reword along the lines of "The fountain has been praised by both trained architects and ordinary city residents for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park"YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • "What does this mean? "The fondness of the public for the fountain made it a beacon for public opinion during a controversy on surveillance cameras."YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • duplicated 2006 in (e.g., the water feature was opened on April 15, 2006 in 2006)YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • overuse of phrase "a bit", especially in Architecture sectionYesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think there are too many images for an article of this length, and most of the images are right-justified. Please consider culling a few images and rearranging the placement of others
      • Holy cow. I just saw this after working most of the gallery into the article. I will revisit this later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • One suggestion: the picture in the infobox also appears in the series; maybe replace that one with either the night view or 50-foot opposing towers photos. In my opinion, the two pictures left in the gallery don't add much to the understanding of the fountain either; as long as the text is in the article, you could probably do away with those and be fine. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I have rearranged to eliminate the gallery. We are now using all the great pictures that we should be happy to have for this article in ways that help depict the sculpture and its features. I don't think the article would benefit by deleting any of the pictures as they are now used.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I still think 13 pictures in an article that is less than 20kb long is overkill. I think you could eliminate the last picture (water spouting) because it is almost the same as the third picture in the series. I also don't see a need for a picture of the unlit tower, and I don't understand the need for the pictures of the grating and the cracks. That information can be incorporated into the text, and the pictures don't add much. 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Here is my explanation for the four pictures you contest. In truth probably an entire paragraph could be written on the drainage, which would justify the pictures. We have reference to the water recirculation in the article and the drainage system is unique. Those pictures thus help depict the sculputure. It is actually a surprise to many that the fountain is unlit at any time because it is unlit for just a few seconds between videos and people don't really notice. This picture documents that. The last picture is really present so that the last section has an image in it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It seems to me that each included picture is illustrating something about the article. This includes the ones in the gallery. Hmmmm.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Too many unnecessary words wikilinked. Iron, pumped, nozzle, tubing? Those are examples of words that should not need a wikilink
    • Need a citation for the assertion that the "children made the design a bit of a legal challenge as well as a physical challenge"YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have any information on why the fountain was commissioned or why it was designed as it was? Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have made it clear that the fountain was part of the Millenium Park opening. Do you want more?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess that is good enough. I don't know anything about Millenium Park and wasn't sure whether that was a big deal or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I may be able to find something about the motivation for Millennium Park, but I am not sure it should go in this article as this is a main article created to expand upon a section of that article. I will look into it over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I enjoyed learning about this interesting place in Chicago. I would like to see it when the weather is good.Babybambam (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Babybambam (talk · contribs)'s second contribution to Wiki; first was to TonyTheTiger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. I am visiting my mother for x-mas and showing her WP. She seems to have learned what is important:-)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Very Very Strong Oppose: GA, 'cuz it's too short and there isn't the history section!!!! No GA - no FA! it's not ready! Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
    • The length itself is not a valid reason for an oppose as long as the article is comprehensive. Since the fountain has been in existance less than 10 years, there really isn't a need for a history section. Do you see any other gaps in the text? Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except the linking. My thought on the linking is that this is a very technical article from an architectural/engineering perspective and the links that you consider controversial are links to technical terms. They help the reader understand what things like tubing and nozzle mean in this technical article. Can you support now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "There isn't the history section" seems to relate more to organization- an extension of "quality of writing" than to comprehensiveness. Length - "too short" would mean requiring expansion - it is rather hard to show incompleteness... - and I would not ask necessarily for examples - although such a comment is valid - the rationale for improvement is "needs expansion due to lack of comprehensiveness" - proof of this was not provided so we are left with only the reputation of the reviewer to back this comment up, and since Briskelly had not the reputation of other reviewers - like the very respected Tony1 - the directorship is not likely to take this claim as worthy of trust.--Kiyarrllston 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-up to objection "The artist intends to portray the social [[evolution]] of the city by [...]" -evolution which this sentence links to says at the very top: "This article is about evolution in biology" - I'm guessing not the intended link
I see no problem with the evolution link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to continue to require copy-editing.
- I note that it continues to have 16 sources total. (a inordinately small number)
-of lesser importance naming a section "artistry" would hopefully mean that you talk about artistry and not about "background" or "miscelanea"
I encourage you to seek more reviews through Friendly Notices if you wish for more involvement - see WP:CANVASS for proper form
-Kiyarrllston 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not appear to have an issue with citation coverage. If you see specific instances in the article where something is not cited and should be, please mention it, but there is not a minimum number of citations required for an FA. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
hi there, there is indeed a minimum number of citations. I believe that number is "greater than one". I believe there is a maximum as well, per the size of the page. The "greater than" would depend on many things, in general I expect an FA quality article to have 50-100 citations.--Kiyarrllston 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.