Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3

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 01:29, 22 August 2008 [1].

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk), Torsodog (talk)

previous FAC (00:05, 31 March 2008)

I have nominated this twice before and submitted it to WP:PR. User:Torsodog has also submitted this to WP:PR, which is how we met. We have attempted to addresss all actionable concerns from the prior FACs and PRs. Given that this has twice been through FAC and PR, it is difficult determine where to get further editorial assistance. Thus, I return here for further consideration. This is part of the Millennium Park Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive. It is one of the few articles that was a WP:GA before we got 10 promoted in June and July. I could put a WP:LOCE tag on it, but do not recall that getting editorial assistance with any other article I have tried that with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As with the article on the BP Pedestrian bridge, I urge you to rethink the structure here. For instance, you have a section on "Artistry," and yet the first two paragraphs read, almost in their entirety:

  Crown Fountain, designed by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa, was unveiled during the July 16-18, 2004 grand opening celebrations for Millennium Park.[11] Plensa won the commission to design the fountains in a competitive process against Robert Venturi and Maya Lin.[6] The park was conceived in 1998 as the capstone of Grant Park, to celebrate the new millennium and to feature world-renowned architects, artists, designers, landscape architects, and urban planners.[10] Within Millennium Park, the fountain is located on the east side of Michigan Avenue across from the Chicago Landmark Historic Michigan Boulevard District, north of the Art Institute of Chicago and south of the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink between Madison and Monroe Streets. It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world, especially the skyscrapers along Randolph Street: Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Smurfit-Stone Building. Viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan.

The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named.[2][12] The Goodman family (Goodman Theatre) was also a large contributor.[3] The fountain's black granite reflecting pool measures 48 feet by 232 feet (15 m × 71 m) and has an approximate water depth of 0.25 inches (0.6 cm).[1] It includes two LED screens encapsulated in a glass brick superstructure, one at each end, measuring 50 feet by 23 feet by 16 feet (15.2 m × 7.0 m × 4.9 m).[1]

What does this have to do with "artistry"? (In fact, what does any of this section really have to do with "artistry"?) While we're at it, what does the following section have to do with "Architecture"? What, if any, is the thought behind the structure in this article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have divided this into two sections. The second section describes artistic elements. Suggestions are welcome on renaming this from "Artistry" to something else. You seem to be a better art scholar than I so you may be able to think of something better than I have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's definitely an improvement, but I do think that this is a question of structure, not simply renaming. What are you trying to cover in this article, and in its sections? Just sticking with the "Artistry" section for now... it might be help if you said something more about Piensa. I note for instance that this was not his first fountain: this article discusses a previous one. (I'm presuming you read Spanish, by the way.) Or if you looked at some sources that treated this piece as a work of art (ISBN: 8434309416, for instance?). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will add some stuff on artistic themes today. I passed my high school and college language requirements with Spanish, but I am not fluent. I will find some English. I will pass by the neighborhood Borders Books and see what they have on Plensa. Gilfoyle discusses dualism as a theme throughout his career.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Jaume Plensa book is not stocked at any Chicago area Borders Book stores and is not carried by the Chicago Public Library. My guess is that the book predated this fountain. I will start with some references from Gilfoyle soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • O.K. How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I recognize that at least one source describes this as an "interactive" fountain... But what's meant by this? It seems to me that it's no more (or less) interactive than any other fountain. Specifically it doesn't change its behaviour in line with what those looking at it or playing in it do, which would make it truly interactive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interactive in the sense that it is not a fountain you just look at or maybe throw coins in. You should bring your bathing suit and have some fun. The fact that the viewers are drawn into playful activity in the fountain makes it interactive despite the fact that their interaction does not change the fountain display.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is throwing coins into a fountain not an instance of "interactivity" in this sense? The Trevi Fountain in Rome is just as interactive as this one is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interactivity implies that the fountain is also acting on the viewers. The Trevi Fountain does not do this. The Crown Fountain does, however, when its two spouts spray water on the fountain's visitors. --Torsodog^Talk 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Wikipedia defines interactivity in the arts as follows: Interactivity also relates to new media art technologies where humans and animals are able to interact with and change the course of an artwork (my emphasis). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          (Subsequent discussion moved to talk page.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) NB the more I think about this, the more the fountain should probably be considered a performance. Unfortunately, you need to track down the sources rather than do original research, of course. But you are making me think I need to get back to Chicago before long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume what you mean is you want critical commentary on the work of art. I think my comments above about artistic themes will address this. I apologize for focussing on architectural and engineering concerns. For a work of art there were very interesting structural concerns that drew my attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the so-called "Controversy" section, you just reinserted a long section that is not a controversy, and specifically not about the fountain. Why? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I added a sentence to explain the controversy (and note the article is sourced). The controversy is about the fact that toursist were limited to the fountain and a few other attractions in the park when the park (as the city's second largest tourist attraction) draws travelers from around the world to come see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In no way is this a controversy about the fountain. For some reason, you seem to be committed to including a "Controversy" section in your articles, and scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill it. Please rethink the way in which you approach article structure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the controversy is that three-fourths of the park was off limit, which left one-fourth for public use. This feature is part of the one fourth. Are you saying the controversy only belongs in the articles about the entire park and the three-fourths of the feature that were off-limits? Or is your point that this is not an encyclopedic controversy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point, made very clearly above, is 1) that this is not a controversy about the fountain, and 2) that you need to rethink the article structure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I understand it, the controversy is about various features of the public park being closed to the public and various features that the public was limited to for certain days. Please advise me of your understanding if it is different.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find myself siding with Jbmurray on this. The controversy, while indirectly involving Crown Fountain, belongs on the Millenium Park page. Access and use of Crown Fountain wasn't limited during the time in which other parts of the park were rented out, as far as I know. If the controversy didn't affect Crown Fountain, I see no reason for it to be on the page. If, somehow, the rentals did affect Crown Fountain, then it deserves to stay on the page, with an extra sentence or two explaining how the Fountain was directly affected by rentals of other parts of the park. Calor (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. does it belong on the pages of the features that were closed like Cloud Gate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • P.S. I still want to hear what Torsodog has to say. Also, commentary on the WP:RS issue below is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • My thoughts on the extra paragraph in the Controversy section are that it should probably be left out as the Fountain only plays a very, very minor role in that particular controversy. I think it would be better to fully flesh it out in the Millennium Park article instead. As for it being placed in the acticles of Park features that were effected, I'm not sure. I have not read about that particular controversy, but if it was indeed a big enough deal in the city then I think it does deserve a mention in articles such as Cloud Gate. --Torsodog^Talk 03:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll be back in about 1.5 hours. Hopefully, I will get the other response by then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see no sign of the article authors seriously addressing the problems with this article; I see, rather, far too much defensiveness. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECTION At this point your comments are about 24 hours old. My first impulse is to charge you with some form of disruptive editing where you come in demanding changes without discussion and agreement. There is no reason for one editor to demand changes without discussion and agreement. We are currently disagreeing on what the controversy is, let alone whether it should be included. I have been working my way through comments in order and skipped ahead to ask questions about your comments, which were at the end. I would like to request the opinion of User:Calor and User:Torsodog on the appropriateness of including the controversy about which features were available and which were unavailable in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object away. But as should be clear: while others either oppose or support straight away, I prefer simply to comment at first, until I have more of a sense of how the article looks to be shaping up. Then I make some kind of judgement. But like everyone else, I'm happy to change my mind if things change. This is not disruptive editing, in any shape or form. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • O.K. since your opposition is based on failure to address concerns. Could you please cap or strike comments so that I can tell what you consider unresolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got your message about looking this over on the weekend. I think this is about the third or fourth FAC where you have decided to object and then when I fixed most of your issues, you decided not to respond for several days. This is getting annoying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've had a look at this again, and have to continue to oppose. I'd love to be able to strike some comments. But no. There's been no real attention to structure, which has been my main point from the start. What's more, the prose has if anything got worse, rather than better. Two examples, almost at random: "The towers are 50 feet (15.2 m) tall and use complicated electronics to animate the digital videos of Chicago residents it displays throughout the year." (That's in the opening paragraph! Not only ugly, but also ungrammatical); "The Crowns acted more independently of Millennium Park officials than did other park feature sponsors." Moreover (and this is another way of looking at the question of structure), too many paragraphs are composed of sentences stitched together without very much in the way of clear logic. That's perhaps especially true of just about every paragraph in the "Artistry" section, for instance, which I just looked at in particular detail since I had problems with it before. BTW, about the Piensa book: the obvious bookstore to try would be the Art Institute's, surely, rather than Borders? Or, of course, a library. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The page is now pretty well structured, IMO. I have cleaned up your examples and another editor, User:Mattisse is copyediting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 4 (Gross, Matt "Amid Architecutral ...) is lacking a publisher and last access date.
  • That came from User:Jbmurray's edits--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 5 (Kamin, Blair "Crown Fountain...) Is lacking publisher
  • Same as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 7 "Steinhauer, Jennifer "Nation Sweats.." Is lacking a last access date and publisher.
  • Same as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Publisher on Current ref 9 (Nance, Kevin ...) Isn't News Bank but the original newspaper (Sun-Times)
  • Same as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if I messed up some of the citations. I'm not particularly used to the cite xxx templates, especially not (I think) cite news. NB however, that I'm surprised if publishers are mandatory for newspaper or magazine articles; the publication name should be sufficient. (I.e. The Times, but not also "News International"; The New Yorker but not "Conde Nast" etc. etc.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, they were missing both the work and the publisher parameters. They need at least one (I tend to use publisher/publication in newspapers interchangably). They now have them. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With regard to the work and publisher parameteres, if they have separate WP articles I link both regardless of the similarity of the name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This one http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/08/park-walk-par-1.html is STILL unaddressed after the last FAC. What makes this a reliable source?
  • This person seems to be more than a blogger. This person seems to be some sort of writer and author. Is this a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the author to qualify as a RS we'd need to know why they would be a RS. Preferably we'd know that they were a noted, published expert on architecture and/or physics. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concede that this is not like sourcing from Gary Becker's blog, but I noted the following on her web page: "I also post three times a week at Twisted Physics, hosted by Discovery News." These blogs seem to be credible in that sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reference 29, the one in question, is only cited after the fact that fins were added to protect the LEDs from direct sunlight. Any person can probably notice that (although it may violate WP:OR). The fact itself, while interesting, is not crucial to understanding the design and structure of Crown Fountain. If this dispute remains unsettled, we can always simply remove the sentence. Calor (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, I say cut the blog. What's important is not the person, but the place of publication. For instance, I write academic articles, and also write a blog. Though of course I personally am of the opinion that my blog contains numerous pearls of wisdom (heh), it's still not a reliable source; my peer-reviewed articles are. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ealdgyth pointed us to the latest thoughts on WP:RS. I see the following text
              • Websites with the following attributes (Is a blog) should be questioned (not automatically removed).
              • If a site is written by a noted expert who has been independently published by reliable sources in the field, or is hosted by a college or university institute concerned with the field, it may be reliable, depending on the text cited or whether there should be other, more reliable (for example, peer-reviewed) sources available.
            • With these two points in mind we should question this, evaluate the cited text, and determine whether other more reliable (peer-reviewed) sources should be used. The text "LEDs fit into an electrical circuit, causing illumination by the movement of electrons in the semiconductor material and making a filament unnecessary, so the bulbs never burn out and do not get too hot. Fins were added to the screens to keep direct sunlight from hitting the LEDs." is WP:ATT to this source. The first of these two sentences may be easily sourced in a physics or electronics book. It also may go unchallenged in the context of this section of the article. The second is a claim specific to the architecture of this fountain. I am not a physicist and do not know by looking at the fountain that fins were added as User:Calor suggest. In fact, I find the point interesting, the source seems semi-credible (I'd say a 7-7.5 out of 10). What are we suppose to question here? We are dealing with a blog that is written for the online enterprise of the Discovery Channel. In terms, blogging that is one of the higher forms of blogging. I cite blogs from Newsweek, Time, Chicago Tribune when no alternate source is available. In the context of this article this single fact is not a lynchpin to the encyclopedic value of the article. In fact, the encyclopedic value would be reduced only slightly by its omission. However, looking at this claim in this article, the context from which it was drawn in the source article, and the relationship between the source article and a trusted source, I would say that if this is the only claim in the article that has a less than bulletproof RS, we should keep it. Looking at the nearby paragraphs in the source article and taking a quick visit to http://blogs.discovery.com/twisted_physics/ I think the source is O.K. I would question an article built upon this source as its primary source. I think the article is better with this claim in it. I.E., if we could source this to a Nobel Prize-winning Physicist, it would be a boost to the article. If FAC has a no blogs policy I would cut it. However, if there is some sort of good blogs/bad blogs decision to be made, I would call this a good blog and vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • • The first sentence (about the design of LEDs) can easily be verified by some external source if the nitpickers want it. Otherwise, it's largely a no-factor. As for the fins, I was under the impression that small, individual fins could be seen when standing a foot away from the fountain. Evidently, I am wrong. Not a first. The article is definitely better with that sentence included. It's interesting, and helps the reader visualize the step-by-step deigning and construction of the fountain. I'll search for another, more reliable source of this fact. If I can't find one... well, the blog(ger)'s credentials aren't that bad... Calor (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the status on this blog? I'm still not convinced that this blog is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have determined that this is the Discovery Channel physics blog. Below Meldshal42 (talk · contribs) declared the references O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • From the site itself "I also post three times a week at Twisted Physics, hosted by Discovery News." This does NOT mean that this particular site is the Discovery Channel physics blog. Also, what Meldshal42 did was run the references through User:DOI bot which does NOT (if you look at its tasks) declare a reference reliable. It merely adds doi information for journals and suchlike. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • O.K. so she is the blogger for the Discovery Channel physics blog. She is an expert on the subject matter whether or not this posting was ever posted to the blog. If she describes attributes of light-emitting diodes, I would describe her as a WP:RS. She is not saying anything controversial. I do feel this posting was a blog posting but we can not go on my hunch. Thus, we should rely on her as a credible expert.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is the name of the fountain supposed to be italicized? These books -- [2], [3], [4] don't use italics for Crown Fountain (but they do use them for Cloud Gate). I'm guessing the difference is that Cloud Gate's title is meant to convey something about the piece, while Crown Fountain is simply named for the people who paid for it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:ITALICS#Italic_type, names of works of visual arts are suppose to be italicized. I believe this is a work of visual art and that this is the name. Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual art notes that 3-D works of art are called plastic arts, and implies the two are separate terms. However, plastic arts says that plastic arts, such as sculptures (like Crown Fountain), are under the umbrella of visual arts. Go figure. Calor (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OPINION REQUEST There is debate at Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1 about the description Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin. Is it over the top? I guess we have about four options:

1. Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin
2. Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin
3. Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin
4. Architecture critic Blair Kamin

Comments welcome. Please state your preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, any of these are fine by me, except the first, which is too long. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it is over the top. Is he the one quoted in Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)? I think it would balance the article to have some critics who were not Chicago boasters and who were more objective. I know you think I am trying to derail your articles, but that is not true. I just think you can do better. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that the Millennium Park articles are all heavily sourced by Newsbank articles. I have access to all Illinois newspapers at Newsbank. I generally check for Time, Newsweek, New York Times and U.S. News & World Report. If these sources don't have critical commentary, I am relagated to Illinois newspapers. Of course, it is not like these are my articles. This is WP. Anyone who has access to other better sources is free to contribute. Unless I can turn up something with a google search or from one of the aforementioned sources, I don't know how to "do better."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are "stretching" the impact, if only local sources and nothing outside that can be found. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that any Chicago person/place or thing is notable if it is written about in four separate New York Times articles, so notability is not a concern and I don't think anyone here is raising WP:N issues. The issue here is whether the critic should have extensive introduction with each first appearance in an article. Thanks for your help on that issue. This fountain would pass notability by a mile at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely over the top. If I had to choose, I would prefer the third choice, "Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin". Calor (talk)

I would select this one also, if forced to choose. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to the requested alternative.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Take the first sentence;

• Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain and video sculpture located in Millennium Park, which is in the Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois, United States.

I would suggest something along the lines of:

• Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain and video sculpture featured in Millennium Park in the Chicago Loop area of Chicago, Illinois.
• Having the community area link detracts from the Chicago Loop link - a much more relevant link. Who cares about Chicago community areas in comparison. And you know that you do not need United States to be linked. A person can click on Illinois to find that out, if they want.
  • I don't see any sculptures at WP:FA except Freedom Monument, which includes its country. As I look at FA Parks (I can't easily eyeball park features by name), they all seem to mention country name. Here is how the first few begin:
    • Death Valley National Park is a mostly arid United States National Park located east of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in southern Inyo County and northern San Bernardino County in California with a small extension into southwestern Nye County and extreme southern Esmeralda County in Nevada.
      • This redirects to United States National Park and not to United States.
    • Chaco Culture National Historical Park is a United States National Historical Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site hosting the densest and most exceptional concentration of pueblos in the American Southwest.
      • Promoted in February 2007 - old school FA values.
    • Gilwell Park is a camp site and activity centre for Scouting groups, as well as a training and conference centre for Scout Leaders. The 44 hectare (109 acre) site is in Sewardstonebury, Epping Forest, close to Chingford, London.
      • This only mentions its location near a neighborhood in London in the second line.
    • Everglades National Park is a national park in the U.S. state of Florida.
      • A new FA, it mentions the United States, but does not link to it.
  • Thus, I think to be consistent with prevailing policy at FA, United States is suppose to be in the first sentence or two of the lead. Country is linked more often than not in these articles. Since this is the prelude to a hopeful WP:FT in which the park and several of its features are described in a parallel way, we should probably go by what other parks are doing at FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The problem is all the useless links that bury your good links. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have too much of a problem delinking United States, but all the articles have the it in the text directly linked, indirectly linked or unlinked. Including the text seems to be a must to me. Delinking United States may be O.K. since the average international reader knows what it is. However, would it be acceptable to say this is a "interactive United States public fountain or interactive American public fountain. Either alternative would space out the links rather than have United States immediately follow two other links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since you did not comment. I just made the suggested compromise above and hope it is O.K. with you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am hesitant to delink community area. Does anyone outside Chicago know what the Community areas of Chicago are? It is not like a state, county, country or other familiar municipal designation. I am also hesitant to chop the term community area to area. We don't chop national park to park or mountain range to range because in each case the shortened form sound slangy. It seems only the Library of Congress, which uses the community areas consistently to describe places in Chicago, knows what they are. I think the rest of the international readers need to know what they are. Thus, I think it should be included and linked. Within the Loop article they could figure it out I guess, which is a possible reason to exclude it. However, no one knows what this one is, which is why it is linked. Further discussion welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to know that much more about Chicago. I read the community area article and it is boring. If I want to know more about Chicago I will read the Chicago article. I think it is the relentless salesmanship regarding Chicago that pulls these articles of yours down. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Salesmanship" seems to be an argument without thought. Since when does a person trying to boast about Chicago use community area in his argument. I have seen a lot of Chicago boosterism in my eight years in Chicago and community area is not a topic of relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Community areas of Chicago is an exciting article. (If it were it might be considered salesmanship:) The point is not whether we teach them about Chicago. The purpose of community area in articles on WP is to teach people the location of things. Clearly, the Loop gives more information about where the park is than Chicago because it is one of 77 officially recognized subdivisions of the city. As an aside, I kind of wish other cities I like to create articles for used a similar system instead of neighborhoods with vague boundaries. The question is does saying Loop convey this information. If I say California, I do not need to say U.S. State California, because people know what it is. International readers do not know community area. Thus, my argument for its inclusion and linkage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You suffer from a "I'm not New York syndrome". Get off it. You do not need to "teach" people about Chicago, certainly not with boring articles about issues of local political interest in an article that is about a genuine work of art that transcends locality. The Everglades article did not link every little town that is affected dramatically by the Everglades. It was not used as boosterism for Florida. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. "You do not need to "teach" people about Chicago". is my line. I just said above, I am not teaching about Chicago, but showing people where the darn thing is located. Are you arguing with me or against me?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CLARIFICATION Chicago Loop's introduction says it has many meanings. 1.)Area bounded by the 'L' Train, 2.)Central business district area, 3.)the downtown area, 4.)community area. What would the reader learn if we said "Chicago Loop area" instead of Loop community area?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure where I stand on this community area issue. I do find it odd, however, to have the article linked in the first sentence of this article when it doesn't even appear linked until the 4th paragraph of the Chicago Loop article. That seems to tell me that the term is simply not important/relevant enough to link in the first sentence of Crown Fountain. If the reader is interested in finding out more about these areas, the linked Chicago Loop would point them in the right direction, no? --Torsodog^Talk 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole point of the statement made as CLARIFICATION is that if a reader goes to Chicago Loop he will be confused as to whether we are saying the park is inside the 'L' Train area, downtown, in the CBD or in the community area. The L area, for example is smaller than the community area and does not include the Park. The point is what we mean here is community area. The point is to provide the reader information. Chicago Loop is unique among the 77 areas (except for possibly Hyde Park in the sense that it is more well-known by alternate definitions than community area. Thus, to be clear we need to tell them community area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. Keep in mind how the Library of Congress would describe where the features are. Look at its picture of the inspiration to Wrigley Square: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/cdn:@field(NUMBER+@band(ichicdn+n080697)) . Of course, I believe the Library of Congress mostly handles American images so I don't think it would need to say American. I think they are a good arbiter in this case of an encyclopedic description of location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I didn't feel too strongly about the issue either way, but you've convinced me that it is worth keeping. --Torsodog^Talk 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The fountain has been praised by both city residents and architects alike for its artistic contribution to Millennium Park."
  • Architects and city residents have praised the fountain for its artistic contribution (think of better word) to Millenium Park.
    • I have tried to reword this section but input would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I have changed it to residents and critics, but would be receptive to other rewording suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Architects and city residents have praised the fountain for its contribution to Millennium Park in terms of artistic presence and entertainment value."

It's those "extra words" that make it sound hokey: "entertainment value" sounds so PR. Isn't the park just plain entertaining? And if you could get rid of phrases like "in terms of" it would be better. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Better. The fountain sounds like a genuine work of art in its own right, regardless of where it is located. Concentrate on the characteristics of the fountain. If it interacts with Chicago residents, then it would be intriguing to know how, and to what effect. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fountain continues to be an inanimate object to my knowledge. Thus, it would be the people who interact with the fountain. They do so by splashing and sliding in the reflecting pool, fighting for position under the spout, and placing themselves under the cascade. It is the receiver (not the doer) of interaction as I understand the critical commentary. Do you want further explanation of this in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC

Well, yeah. I thought I read somewhere that it splashes water on people in a way that seems arbitrary and therefore they take personally. So, in my mind, it seems as if people relate to the fountain personally, even though it is inanimate. Does that make sense? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the spouting is not arbitrary. It is like clockwork. It is all in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the last pair of images on the left? That shows two of the types of interaction. Fountains spouting water is not interactivity. Most fountains spout water. The interactivity is the people trying to get wet in different ways. I'll try to expound and rearrange the text to explain this better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the new interactivity explanation with rearranged and expanded text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about its public art aspects. In most cities that is a big deal. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. public art is in the article now, but not the way you want it. I will work something into artistry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• American vs. United States - I think United States is correct as American is too broad. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if your opinion of American vs. United States holds given that I feel it is essential to move it to an adjectival position earlier in the sentence to be parallel in format to Park FAs. I could switch to interactive United States public fountain, but I think American is a better adjective. Replacing it at the end of the sentence gives us three consecutive linked words, which is sure to be ridiculed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Weather permitting, the water operates from May 1st to approximately October 31st - how does water "operate"? Could it "flow" or "cascade" instead?
  • (The towers) use complicated electronics. - it would be a good idea to describe briefly what the complicated electronics do, rather than leave the sentence hanging in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of technical stuff in the architecture section. I am not so sure the lead should be more extensive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished a copyedit as best I could and struck my comment above. I left some comments on the article talk page and a few in the article as hidden comments. I am not ready to support as I have not seen that Sandy Georgia is OK with the MOS issues and I am concerned about the image / fair use / NFCC issues too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I like the portions you added about the artist and the artistry; these additions remove my objections above regarding this. Two small requests. 1.) I think you should add something in the video filming section that the subjects had to be filmed "puckering". You don't mention the puckering until almost the end. Having seen youtube videos of the fountain, I think the puckering and the water flowing out is fascinating; it must have taken some skill to film. 2.) I don't like the following sentence because it appears to have an agenda behind it: "The next day the cameras were removed, despite the city's claims that they were harmless." I think the sentence would be improved if you removed the second half: "despite the city's claims that they were harmless." Otherwise, I will support the article, pending the reference check by User:Ruhrfisch. (I have quibbles about some of the links as noted above but that will not stop my support.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The first few paragraphs in the artistry section describe the making of the video. I added a sentence about puckering. Also above you mention an interest in who's idea this was. I have added something about how the artist wants to represent the demographics of the city. Do you think we should link to a Youtube video. I am not sure what FA protocol is on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I reread the first few paras I don't think anything needs to be added about puckering. It is all there. See the second para.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I have expanded the video details and made a separate paragraph out of it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Youtube would be great but I think it is forbidden for copy right reasons. Youtube makes it look like performance art. I agree with the editor above who questions your Controversy section. Also, as I say above, you seem to have an agenda in it (seem to be pushing a political point) that seems out of context for the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware that the controversy section was still at issue given that I have removed the controversial paragraph. I don't understand politics well enough to know what point I seem to be pushing, but would gladly rework any contentious statements. I have edited the harmless phrase you took issue with earlier and added expanded material to explain its relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the "harmless" phrase. Do all people in Chicago suspect the city is out to get them? On another issue, do you have a photo of the towers at night (not the faces but the sides that apparently light up in different colors? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I not have a picture, but also I do not recall seeing the fountain at night with such lights. I will scour flickr.com and see what I come up with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

360 images are at flickr under a search of "Crown Fountain" and night. None of them are currently licensed appropriately for use in WP. I will put in some requests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. There are basically three types of night photos that would meet your request.

Type 1 shows the dualism by taking the photo from behind one with the face of the other visible

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinoy_sa_iowa/619681968/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/flaneur/2218699621/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/

Type 2 shows it from the side in a way that captures both the face and the color

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/timshahan/1645354581/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/91742518@N00/95718385/

Type 3 is the majority, which is from the back straight on so that only the colored back is visible

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/realmccoy0/235380468/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnalawton/1562489740/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinoy_sa_iowa/619049873/

Which type(s) do you want me to put in licensing requests for?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. They are all beautiful. I would go for category 1, with second choice category 3 because they show the criss-cross structure in addition to the beautiful color. Maybe, this one as first choice: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ but these are beautiful too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/flaneur/2218699621/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinoy_sa_iowa/619049873/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/realmccoy0/235380468/ —Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will send about 10 type 1 requests. Hopefully, someone will be willing to change their licensing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If worse comes to worse and no one replies by Saturday, I will try to take them with my Canon PowerShot TX1, which is not going to get us the best pic, but will be better than nothing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me updated on the image situation. I would also be willing to grab some night shots or even try to catch the fountain when it is showing the river/waterfall video. --Torsodog^Talk 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ has been change appropriately.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary - My objects above can be summarized as follows (copied from TonyTheTiger's page):
• The prose needs a thorough copy edit to streamline it and make it more elegant and worthy of an FAC
• The article needs to be more focused and tightly organized on the fountain as a work of art and information relevant to this added. For example, whose idea was having the "subjects" (Chicago residents) chosen for videos, etc. What was the artist's role in this and does it have a history in his past work? At first mention of the artist, it should include that he was Spanish, not some sections later. Also, there is a link to Universal design, but how the fountain fulfills the elements of this are not explained.
• Related to the above, relevant wikilinks, for example, to public art are not there and there are irrelevant links, for example to Community areas of Chicago that serve to distract the reader in my mind.
• Support - my objections have been largely satisfied. This article comprehensively covers a fascinating work of public art. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw support - sections have been mixed up and do not keep to topic. For example, the first thing that hits my eye is that right in the middle of Selection of artist is a paragraph about construction of the fountain which belongs with other information on construction. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What does this sentence mean in reference to Crown Fountain: "Plensa's objective was to create a universal fountain of the 21st century for the world."?? Maybe the sentence could just be removed. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is cited. I could give you the original text if you like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited or not, the sentence does not make sense to me. What does it mean? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote: 'he wanted to create a new kind of fountain. "The Crown Fountain is not just a foutain for Chicago," Plensa insisted, "but a foutain fo the entire world," a fountain for the twenty-first century. He endearvored to creaate something with a certain universailty about it.'--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You copyedited the text to read "Plensa's objective was to create a socially relevant, interactive fountain for the 21st century." instead of the original "Plensa's objective was to create a universal fountain of the 21st century for the world." Now that you have the original secondary source feel free to comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the fountain's name in italics? I see nothing at MOS:ITALICS that indicates it should be. —Giggy 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fountain is classified as a work of visual art. --Torsodog^Talk 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Somewhere above there are complaints about the organization with which I agree, by User:Ruhrfisch. Also, complaints about the prose. (And User:Jbmurray too, as I can't tell who said what.) Further, I see you just added a big section. From my point of view Dedication and Operation do not go together. You have almost nothing to say about the dedication (just the Unveiling). Operation, from my point of view could be part of the engineering and design. Operation would be the day-to-day operational issues. Whereas, under Operation you are discussing the fountain as it was designed to operate, not as the city workmen operate or maintain the fountain. I do not see why Video sculpture and Fountain are separated. I'm not sure if "video sculpture" is a real term. I have never hear it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments you are agreeing about have now been resolved following many of the instructions of the editor, User:Ruhrfisch, that you refer to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up "Video sculpture" on Google, I get videos of sculpture and of sculptors talking of sculpting. Therefore, I do not think it is a correct term in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is both in critical reviews. Check the refs. One has the phrase in its title. However, the city downplays this for the reason recently added to the article that some view the video sculpture as a big jumbotron. It would be like proclaiming the Times Square screen a treasured object of visual art. It is the low-brow perspective of the work and downplayed as much as possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of google it is sparsely mentioned in WP:RS. However, one of the sources is extremely reliable: http://www.uiowa.edu/jmc/alumni/index.html This is one of the professors who oversaw the shooting. He is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Video sculpture" would seem to be a term in use, as NY MoMA has acquired one.[5] The term is used in Britannica[6] and here it is in The Independent.[7] Ty 05:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets from Google Scholar are not good WP:RS because they are taken out of context so it is impossible to know what is meant; the britannica source comes up as a flash advert; the third source, again, it is impossible to know what is meant - a video on a TV set? Please come up with a reliable definition from a reputable source about what the term means, not just that it is used in passing. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first google search result for "what is a video sculpture" is http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/leonardo/v034/34.1dictionary.html. This defines a video sculpture as:

Video Sculpture--Video installation involving one or more TVs. The spectator moves among the TVs or stands in front of them. A video sculpture formed of several TVs may broadcast a single program or may simultaneously broadcast different interconnected sequences on several channels. There are many ways in which the TVs can be arranged. Televisions can be on the ground, with the screen facing the viewer or the wall; suspended from the ceiling; aligned and stacked to make a wall; or even randomly stacked on top of each other. In some cases only the cabinet is displayed. In others, the television cabinet is emptied of its contents and displayed with something else inside. (A sub-category of video installation, distinct from trap device, video environment, audio-video environment and video painting.)

Hope this clears up all the confusion. --Torsodog^Talk 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We are grinding very small on this one, & it has clearly improved during review. I agree with some of the comments above, but it clearly seems to meet FA standards. But I don't see why the "Video Production" section is under "Construction & Engineering" rather than the "Concept and design section" above. Prose could be improved at points, but I think this deserves the star. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will move the video production because it seems sensible to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thank you for being willing to take the suggestions of others to improve the article. You have taken care of most of my problems with it. I think it has come a long way and I can now support it. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw support - You are mixing up the sections again. For example, Plensa's comments should not be under Critical reception. His artistic concept should all be in one place, in my opinion. Also, the Critical reception contains trivia, in my opinion, and despite your reference, I have not been able to find out any information on the "Bombay Sapphire prize". —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I don't think it was moved since you supported, I think you make a valid point on the comment and it has been quickly moved. I will look at the rest of these comments tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that when I originally rearranged the article and set up the headings, I did not stick Plensa's comments under Critical reception. I cannot keep rereading the whole article each time to see what you have moved around and put out of place for seemingly no reason. I am tired of bucking you. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are throwing me under the bus here. This shows it has been there since your rearrangement. I may have moved it there earlier, however. It is not worth arguing about. What matters is that it is easily changed and has been.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unclear about what you consider trivia in the critical reception, so you are not making an actionable objection, IMO. I will cite the prize.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added an online reference to supplement the existing print reference for the Prize.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes: I don't see an image check, and there is still an outstanding reliable source question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT, WP:RS are you talking about the Discovery Channel Physics blog?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be doing a copyedit of the prose in the next day or so. I assume the MOS issues have been addressed and will not systematically check those. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with a copyedit, see above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited for language and assumed all MOS issues were resolved. I can try to do something tomorrow about these other issues. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure on some of the hyphenation, but it looks like convert templates were used without regard to correct hyphenation, so that the conversions should have been handled manually. Without hyphens, there were a couple of sentences that lost me. I also thought WP:NBSP had been dealt with, but still found times (am and pm) without them, so there may be others, and boundary issues on the numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as convert hyphens go, I tried to use adj=on where appropriate. As I mentioned above, I am unfamiliar with a x-ft-tall vs x-ft tall convention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will let Tony deal with the rest of the copyedits. You are welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworded to avoid the whole issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: serious image concerns. The United States does not have freedom of panorama; the images of the fountain (when illuminated - I don't have an issue with the plain brick towers during the pause) are derivative works. The uploader appears to know this per the Commons deletion discussion, in which these very images of the illuminated fountain were deleted and/or blurred. Images of the fountain would need to claim fair use and would, thus, become subject to WP:NFCC; NFCC#3A (minimal use) and NFCC#8 (significant contribution to our understanding) will be an issue if the licenses are changed ceteris paribus. Images that already claim fair use, by the way, are not in compliance (e.g. Image:20070616 Crown Fountain Spouting.JPG is, at 2,304 x 3,072, most certainly not low resolution). See also MOS:IMAGES regarding left-alignment under level 2 headers. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above there is discussion on italicizing the name of this work. Do most fountains count as visual arts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everything has a FUR now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said initially, changing the licenses ceteris paribus isn't going to fix the issue. How are seven fair use images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) compliant with minimal use (NFCC#3A) and a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? For example, why is 2 needed when both 6 and 7 have night view? How is the night view a significant contribution above and beyond a day view? Why are all three stages of puckering and spouting needed? Do we think so little of our readers that they can't envision this action? The puckering and spouting images are day view; how, then, is the "solo" day view image in the infobox supported by NFCC#3A? The images, further, are not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and should not have the CC/GFDL tags. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I misread your minimal use complaint as saying the articles needed to be much smaller. I had shrunk almost all of the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)If I had to rank them, I would pick 1 as the best photo (now used in the infobox) and 6 as the second best - night shot showing both a face and its reflection and the internal lighting of the other tower (without leaves obscuring this). If two more were allowed, I would pick the first 3 and last 5 of the face, pucker, spew sequence. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me state more clearly that I had shrunk almost all of the images at issue here [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have never used the same image twice in an article. the main image stands by itself in representing the most important feature of the subject. 3, 4 and 5 are a series demonstrating a dynamic feature of the park. There is no statement in the policy that we can not include fair use images of understandable prose. This set of images makes the article more easily perceived. the night image shows the pixelation-like view much more clearly than either of the other night views.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know you guys have fun holding my articles to different standards than other FA articles, but is there a reason why this article should have fewer images than Henry Moore, Salvador Dalí, or Campbell's Soup Cans, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, Angkor Wat (the first five art articles I clicked on at WP:FA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am looking at all 2008 FA promotions. Each of them has about the same image density that this candidate has. I don't see why this article needs fewer images than the rest of our FAs. I also don't understand why including images in my FA means I "think so little of our readers that they can't envision" things. The following are the 2008 Art FA promotions: Vasa, Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, Catherine de' Medici's building projects, Lisa del Giocondo, Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood, The Garden of Earthly Delights, Ima Hogg, Joseph Priestley House, Las Meninas, Rokeby Venus, The Third of May 1808, Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, Western Chalukya architecture, and John Michael Wright.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Since I worked on Ima Hogg, I can state that you're comparing apples and oranges; IIRC, Ima Hogg has zero non-free images. Are you perhaps confused about the difference between free and non-free images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Since User:Awadewit and I are the main authors of Joseph Priestley House, I can say there are 12 images in the article, 11 of them free (8 I took myself, 3 are PD old artworks). The one non-free image is a portrait of Priestley used on a postage stamp that had its Day of Issue at the Priestley House and is discussed in the article. I trust Elcobbola on images and fair use and WP:NFCC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And I just did a quick check on the Tomb of Antipope article and found no non-free images. TTT, you are comparing apples and oranges; do you have an example of a recently passed FA that has this many issues with non-free images? I would be surprised, as Elcobbola has been checking images closely for most of the year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • On the other hand, Campbell's Soup Cans passed a year and a half ago, without an image review, and it probably isn't at standard today because it has all or almost all non-free images. I checked one more; An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump also has zero non-free images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • • P.S., as the nominator of Campbell's Soup Cans, I assure you it had extensive image review. Note that the second nomination was reset.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yes. I should distinguish between free and non-free, but we should also distinguish between modern and non-modern. Nothing modern has passed this year. I don't know if it is the new image interpretations, but you seem to suggest that Henry Moore, Salvador Dalí, and Campbell's Soup Cans would all have trouble at FAR. When is the last modern article to pass?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Sandy, I have put in a request with User:elcobbola on his talk page to explain how long he has been involved in FAC image licensing evaluation and what modern art has passed at FAC in that time. From what I can tell all Modern art passed before this year. I am not sure I understand what the current standards are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually, since Henry Moore is currently a C-Class article masquerading as a FA, I am going to FAR it for citations and not for images. I guess I am going to have a reputation for taking down popular articles since this follows New York Yankees at WP:GAR and Teddy Roosevelt at WP:FAR. Someone has to take a tough stands against popular articles. I love Henry Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form). The article is not up to standard, however. Disregard prior mention of him in this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article currently has 19 images, 7 of which are fair use. Supposing the number of fair use images was dropped to 3 (keep the infobox image 1 as it shows the fountain and image closeup and the water spout hitting someone, perhaps the middle pucker image of the 3 image sequence 4 as it shows a pucker without spouting water, shows more people and gives an idea of the impressive skyline to the north, and keep the night image 6 as it shows a smile, and the appearance at night, and the lit glass block tower). There would still be 15 images in the article, and some of the images that are now tiny could then be shown larger so more detail could be seen, for example Fair Use images 4 and 6 or LED bricks or kids playing. Even if only two fair use images were allowed (1 and 6 would be my choices) there would still be 14 images. Perhaps most importantly this could be featured and end our suffering ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis by counting makes no sense to me. I see two issues. I have posted them on the talk page at WP:WPVA. Basically, I don't think anyone who understands art well would say the article would be as good without the sequence of images. I may be wrong. I am not sure about the other issue. I am trying to get an understanding of User:elcobbola's fair use standards and have requested a list of all modern art and artist that has passed at FAC since he has been involved in the image evaluations so I can understand what type of modern art articles meet his interpretation of fair use standards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried moving the series into the infobox in place of the most expendable image. However, I think something is lost with this exchange. I may revert.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a night of rest, I decided the article could do without a second image of the water spouting and of the dualism.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the former lead image Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG is the one fair use photo I would keep if only one were allowed and would also use it as the lead (infobox) image. It shows it is a fountain, it shows people "interacting" with the fountain and the scale of the work, it shows the face / LED screen, and it shows the urban setting. The current lead image does not show the whole tower (cuts off the top), does not show water (at least obviously) or the surrounding buildings, and while it does show people for scale, it is not as clear how they are "interacting" with the fountain. I am not a fair use expert, but I thought three images seemed defensible under WP:NFCC, which is why I did the numbers above. I also expressed my preference for images - man, woman, child; face, pucker, spew; close up, night, setting - I thought the three I picked showed the most variety, though I am sure others could be picked. Once the fair use issue is resolved I will support. I doubt that the current version with 6 fair use images meets NFCC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you prefer the former main image to Image:20080410 Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg? I'll look through your other preferences again and comment later. I am out and only have about a half hour of online time right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While the new image is very nice, I still like the former lead image better. The old one shows more of the fountain and it is clearer that the water is hitting the kids. I do like the new image - nice color / lighting, great background, but the old photo is better of the fountain itself. My thought was that 2 or 3 fair use images was acceptable, but much more was probably not. If anyone more knowledgable about fair use and WP:NFCC wants to weigh in, please do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I greatly appreciate your critical eye on the images and have reverted. You did not object to the other image removal so it remains out. I will look more closely at the images over the next few hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have looked at the images you discussed. You prefer one of the two dualism night time photos. When Matisse suggested I add one I sent flickrmails to almost ten photographers. Two responded immediately and a third did so later. After requesting that three people change the licensing on their images, I felt so guilty I included both immediate respondents. After sending them letters of thanks for being so kind as to change the licensing just for us, I don't want to choose between the two and am remiss to do so for that reason. I continue to feel strongly about including the entire sequence for instructive reasons. That gets us to five quick images. I am going to watch a movie and get back online in about two hours and look at the last two of the seven FUs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. The only image that neither you or I defends strongly is 2. I kind of think it is important to have an image that depicts the fountain on a scale that helps the reader understand what it is like at night. This is not a duplicate of the other night view and because it is at night I think it gives a crisper view of the "video sculpture". Any thought? Also I repeat my query above about the removed dualism photo that was not deamed FU.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I started from the assumption that if 7 fair use images were unacceptable, then 4 or 5 or 6 would be unacceptable too. I assumed 2 was OK and that 3 would be OK if they were sufficiently different. Then I tried to pick the best three images that showed different aspects of the fountain, which is how I came up with my list. I really like the three image sequence, but not as the only three fair use images. I do not know if it would be acceptable as one collage (i.e. one image with the three pasted together instead of three separate images). I do like 2 as a photo and agree it gives the scale well, but I like the dualism night shot better and assume fair use will only allow one night shot. As for the removed daytime non FU dualism shot, I like it too, but don't really miss it as long as there is another shot of both towers (prefer the night shot). IF a different night shot were used, perhaps the non FU dualism shot could be put back in. As for the Flickr users who changed their licenses, you could always write them and thanks them and point to this page and say you tried but the fair use policy only allows so many photos. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is nothing in NFCC that advises a count although one might interpret minimal usage to be supportive of such an evaluation technique. I interpret it more as a statement to analyze each image and say which are necessary to retain the encyclopedic value of the article. I could easily fight for a four sequence image showing the cascading water after the spouting. I think a collage would be worse in the sense that duplication would include all three images and necessitate a proliferation of multiple images. Also, keep in mind that whereas fair use usually is to protect the right of the artist to profit from his work, in this case we are dealing with public art that is free to see and free to photograph. Showing examplary imagery may increase interest in the work and the artist rather than provide a free alternative to something that the public would otherwise pay for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As Tony said, I am also tired of arguing over this article. I will just quote Elcobbola How are seven fair use images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) compliant with minimal use (NFCC#3A) and a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? For example, why is 2 needed when both 6 and 7 have night view? How is the night view a significant contribution above and beyond a day view? Why are all three stages of puckering and spouting needed? Do we think so little of our readers that they can't envision this action? The puckering and spouting images are day view; how, then, is the "solo" day view image in the infobox supported by NFCC#3A? The images, further, are not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and should not have the CC/GFDL tags. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC). I read this as saying two images would be OK for fair use and perhaps three if they could be justified (which I have tried to do). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • In answer to your question, I have beefed up all the FURS except for the lone night shot. I have to reread the text and re-evaluate whether a good FUR rational is in the current text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have reread the text and the lone night shot does not explain anything currently in the text of the article. It is however, the clearest picture of what the sculpture looks like at night. I will try beefing up the FUR to say it provides a clear picture of the subject of the article at night. I hope beefing up the FURs is sufficient for the image concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It appears to me that the three most recent modern art FAs are Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (May 2007), Triptych, May–June 1973 (Aug 2007), and André Kertész (Oct 2007). They have collages that enable them to keep their FU counts at two or three. Do you know how to make a collage of the three image sequence and the two nighttime photos? Collages of these would take me to four FURs, which is certainly more reasonable than seven if they are counting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will try one with the three image sequence - will look at the examples you give for ideas on how to put them together. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know when you have something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded a collage of the three image spouting sequence here: Image:Crown Fountain collage.JPG. I also have a note in to User:elcobbola on his/her talk page, but . IF elcobbola feels this is not justified, I will delete the collage. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I swapped the collage into the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That takes us to five FUs. User:Torsodog and I are discussing a new main image that by virtue of panoramic scale may not be a FU at User_talk:Torsodog#Crown_Fountain_photo. That would take us to four. What do you think about collaging the two night dualism images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently, I missed the talk page verdict on the collage by twenty minute. We can swap back the to the original images if it doesn't help us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered to make a collage of the three image sequence that shows the face puckering and spouting water for TonyTheTiger. Would this be considered one image for fair use / NFCC purposes? If so I will make it, if not I will not bother. I defer to your understanding and thank you in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made it and uploaded it Image:Crown Fountain collage.JPG. My understanding is that this would be used in place of three separate images in the Crown Fountain article. I will delete it if you think it is not justifiable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the subject of some debate. Consider, for instance, an article about German auto makers. Ignoring the criterion of significance for a moment, let's say the author wanted "to comply" with minimal usage by consolidating the logos of BMW, Opel and Porsche into one image. In this case, the letter of the policy is followed, but the spirit is violated as the article would still contain the three copyrighted works (i.e. copyrighted material hasn't really been minimized). The question for the fountain, then, is whether this is still an issue given that the three images of are of the same copyrighted work. While I recognize that there may exist reasonable argument to the contrary, I think, in this case, that I still side with opinion that this doesn't cut the proverbial NFCC mustard. There is, further, the question of why we would need Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG if the article has the compilation; both show the fountain in daylight from a functionally equivalent angle. Why are both needed? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be on the FAC page. Note the three most recent modern art FAs are Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (May 2007), Triptych, May–June 1973 (Aug 2007), and André Kertész (Oct 2007). The first two use collages of a logical series that go together just as this collage does. I think you understand that three collages of different company logos are a different thing than a collage of a series. However, if you do not or if this does not matter then the first two of these has seven FU images just like Crown Fountain. I will copy this to the FAC discussion for transparency.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above Discussion copied from User_talk:Elcobbola#Crown_Fountain_FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you have been following the discussion above Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG has been defended in the article based on artistic merit. Please reread the artistic elements that this image adds to the article as described above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A copyrighted work is a copyrighted work is a copyrighted work. The constant mention of mechanical image counts indicates a genuine failure to understand the intention of NFCC and the questions I have posed related thereto. Further, what other articles do or have done is absolutely irrelevant. I, as I see is the case with several other reviewers, am tired of bickering on this subject. I'll try to approach it this way: my oppose stands until Image:CrownFountain.jpg and the collage (i.e. the images therein) are removed, as I can foresee no reasonable explanation of how they would pass NFCC#3A and NFCC#8. I do not intend to revisit the FAC; you are welcome to move relevant comments. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the collage. Thanks for your time and expertise. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above two items here from Elcobbola's talk page. This is my 29th edit to this FAC - for comparison, as nominator I just had an FAC pass where I only made 27 edits (and I replied to almost every post). Here is my bottom line: no more than TWO fair use images and I will support. They should be as different as possible and show as many features of the fountain as possible. Of the images currently in the article, here are my strong preferences. First one should be a day time photo showing a face, the water spout, and people in the waterspout (I prefer the current lead image, the third of the collage would be OK). Second one should be a night time photo, showing both toweres. Again my preference is the two towers shot that is not obscured by trees and has some tall buildings in the background. The other two towers shot is partly obscured, and the single face at night just does not show enough new things to be the second fair use photo. I do not want to see more elaborate FURS for seven images. I want two FAir Use images, period. I also think some of the current images that are tiny (two per frame) could be made regular thumb size to show more of their detail (the LED bricks shot, the nozzle shot, the kids playing shots). I will make one more edit to this page, that is it (hopefully it will be to support, but that is up to you) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last two featured articles about modern works of art have seven fair use images (counting each copyrighted work in a collage separately), why are you issuing a demand that this one have two. Are you making some sort of point that unless I follow an unreasonable demand you won't support. The sequence will remain in the article you feel it contributes to the understanding of the article sufficiently to be included. If you think a count is the way to do this what does the number two come from given the last two FA works of art had seven? Elcobbola has chosen to object for non numerical reasons based on image specific concerns. I will remove Image:CrownFountain.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well this is my last edit here. I hoped it would be a support, but it will just stay at comment. Congratulations, you've driven another reviewer away. Here I will waste yet more time with some final points.

1. This FAC is about this article. It is not about "the last two featured articles about modern works of art". Focus on this and what people here have already said (in some cases many times).
2. Please read WP:NFCC. It makes no mention of numbers of images. As I pointed out above, even if you only have two or three Fair use images, the article will still have a dozen or so total images, which is a lot.
3. What may very well be justified for one article may not be so for another. Again, this FAC is about Crown Fountain the article, period, full stop, end of story. How does it comply with the WP:MOS? How does it meet WP:WIAFA? Does it follow WP:NFCC and all other relevant and applicable policies and guidelines? No more, no less.
4. I have made repeated suggestions about images which you have mostly ignored. I felt that explicitly stating what it would take to get me to support would be useful. Let me again refer you to the NFCC, specifically:
   • 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. How does having two very similar night shots meet this requirement? I indicated which of the two night shots I thought was better. Similarly, what do four daytime shots add individually? I indicated which of the daytime shots I thought was better.

   8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I agree with Elcobbola's comment long ago above - what does a three sequence image of the face smiling, puckering, and spouting water add that to the reader's understanding that the written description and the current infobox image do not? Perhaps a video clip would be acceptable for this, but I do not know. Alternatively, if the three image daytime sequence is used, how does the current daytime infobox shot add any new information? As you know I think the current infobox shot is the one fair use photo I would keep if only one were allowed.

5. As I commented on User:Torsodog's talk page yesterday (after my next to last edit above), I think a panoramic photo from the side could be a useful addition to the article and would probably be an allowable third image (as it would show the whole work from a perspective not currently in the article). See User_talk:Torsodog#Crown_Fountain_photo.

I was going to close with some advice, but then I realized you don't follow what people say here with carrot of an FA star dangling in front of you, so what good would advice do? I do think this article needs a map of Millennium Park that could be used in all the related articles. I think it needs at least a few sentences on history: how the park was a railroad yard for years, then became available to the city of Chicago, and turned from an original idea of a parking garage with grass on the roof into this. My understanding is that since I am not currently an oppose, I can just walk away, which I will do now. Good luck. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - References check out with the Doibot. --Meldshal42? 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (ec) Tony, please take very seriously the points that my colleague Elcobbola makes about non-free images. The last thing you want is for the NFC police to come along and delete them ham-fistedly while you're on vacation. And we do want to support WP's pillar concerning the free reproducibility of our articles; that means a yet tougher approach to FU justification than is provided in US statutory and common law. — Tony1 04:27, August 17, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • We are continuing to talk through our image selections. Feel free to follow along and comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, I'm disappointed to see a defensive attitude towards our reviewers' expert comments, rather than a willingness to work with them to bring the nomination up to the point it should have been at when nominated. It's not a fix-it service here; you're sucking in our professional reviewing resources that could be allocated more fairly across the FAC list. There's jbmurray, professor of English at an august institution, having to huff and puff about a macro-design matter ... — Tony1 04:27, August 17, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • JBMurray has disappeared from this discussion. I have tried to respond to JBM. I have removed huge chunks of well-researched and cited information. I think we have structured the article sufficiently that he should remove his object, but he has not. I don't know what to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that WP:CHICAGO may begin to become more lively next month. Given responses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members and Wikipedia:CHICAGO/leadership. I continue to believe that with a group of respondents like WP:CHICAGO's earlier FAs these submissions would not be so burdensome. We hope to have project peer review and A-class reviews set up so that fewer issues remain at PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• However, the result is finally good. The prose is mostly up to standard. Your own photos are excellent contributions. Here are a few pointers in a spot-check of the prose, half-way down.
• "Some" is always an alarm-bell word for me, like "any", "various" and "numerous". "Getting the water to the spout took some ingenuity."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "On each block, one of the six faces is polished, while the other five surfaces are textured."—Avoid "while" as a connector (like "with"), where simultaneity is not at issue. Just "and" without the comma will do.
  • "and" is fine, but I think I prefer "but". The comma is required for grammatical propriety to properly conjoin the two independent phrases.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "but" is not OK: "but" indicates a contradiction or reversal or detraction from what has just been written. This is not the case. A comma is optional here (A and B), and my advice is not to use one in such a short sentence. I don't know or care about some rule you've got about conjoining whoseewhatsit. This is my last posting at this nomination page. Like jbmurray, I can't be bothered fighting you. Tony (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I conceed "and" is better than "but". I was not concentrating earlier. However the grammatical propriety of a comma to conjoin independent phrases still prevails. This is not a pair of nouns or something where the comma is optional.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "would then look like they were each missing a tooth"—"as though"
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Another noun plus -ing urchin: "Concern over the spouting water potentially knocking people down made the design both a legal and a physical challenge." Ungainly, and so easy to fix. Don't like "potentially", either. "The risk that the spouting water would knock people down was a legal and physical design challenge." Tony (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC) PS See this analysis of the six problems in this sentence. Tony (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:Mattisse got this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Your link under Critical reception, High-concept, only relates to films, not fountains. Further, the San Francisco Chronical article given as a reference, does not mention "high-concept". —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says "The design by Jaume Plensa is high-concept". What do you mean it does not mention high-concept?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the linked page to refer to art in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Response to your comment above:' I'm not surprised that jbmurray is unavailable now. It's exasperating to provide an expert opinion, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. For example, I'm not going to fight you on the comma imbroglio above—I just can't be bothered; if you think you know better, fine, that one is no big deal. But the problem is that not only that (1) these huge nomination pages result, sucking in our valuable resources, but (2) it might look to a third party that you're trying to game the system by beating the reviewers down so they lose hope, go away, and leave your nomination to be promoted. I don't believe that you're doing this consciously, but it does end up being the effect in part.

Next time, is it too much to ask that you present a nomination in much better shape and aim to keep the page as short as possible? ... like, by working with us instead of bickering? Tony (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coment I've purposely avoided this discussion, because I figured it would be another timesink. But just to chime in with regards to the "comma imbroglio": TonyTheTiger is following common American usage here. Without the comma, many English teachers would considered the statement a run-on sentence. (See Elements of Style I.4, for example.) I realize that things are different overseas, but since we're writing about an American fountain, I think Tiger's comma use is fine. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not try to submit crappy contentious nominees. All I can say is that next on deck is Cloud Gate. I apologize if you think it is crappy and/or contentious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:45, 20 August 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.