In any case, please close it or have it closed per WP:FAC instructions: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying they aren't reliable sources, just that you need to put in a statement in the reference like |format=fee required so that folks know that the full text link will need a fee paid. Essentially, with the link to the ChiTribune refs, you're providing a convienence by linking to the abstract. Anyone can go to their library/etc. and look up the full article that way, if they want. Same with the New York Times, it's a convience, not a requirement, to have the online link. (NYTimes doesn't even require a fee, just that you register) I see no need to withdraw because I asked that the reference include the (as is in the MOS) fact that a link requires a fee or registration. Sorry if that upset you. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN However, I withdraw this nomination due to the current unavailability of NYTimes articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this, the NYT archives are perfectly accessible, you've just provided bad links. You need to review and correct the links. For example, here is the correct link for one mentioned above: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/us/28cameras.html Do you still want the nomination withdrawn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think dead links to articles that were published in print should ever be a reason to withdraw a nomination. The NYT is available at plenty of libraries. If the links are broken, either fix or just delete. -Pete (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleting a ref is not correct. The question is what is the proper fix for a link to an NYTonline link that newly requires a fee. If I could cite the correct page of the print version, I would just change the ref to that. However, in this case, I do not. What is the proper protocol for a NYT ref that has been converted over to the subscription service.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting deleting the ref, merely the broken or inadequate link. Refs without links are fine...not ideal, but fine. If you've found a better solution, that's great. (I don't have any problem with a link that goes to a pay site, provided that it has enough info that looking it up in a library is a viable alternative.) -Pete (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see the article, and the publication date is December 28, 2006. Author was Libby Sander. That all you need? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Still have concerns about this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(confl) Oppose - the section artisty is composed only to graphical and numerical dates, there is a few of information. MOJSKA666 (msg) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC) closed votation. MOJSKA666 (msg) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Restarted nomination, I can vote now. MOJSKA666 (msg) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In the artisty section there are only numerical dates. About the istory there are very few information. MOJSKA666 (msg) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Artistry (not artisty) section there are three paragraphs. Although the first does not explain much about the sculpture, the second describes the animation fairly well. Do you feel the second paragraph in this section is lacking. Remaining details about the architecture of the sculpture are saved for later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think some of the writing requires a copy-edit, so I will go through it over the next couple of days. Also, I think the image in the infobox should be switched to one that shows the fountain better. The current one is dark, and I can barely make out the outline of a tower. --maclean 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: In "Artistry", does that one reference cover the entire paragraph on attempting to catch glimpses of themselves? The ref-link gives a 404.  --maclean 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply I don't know any other way to find it than to go to the subscription system. So I linked the find articles ref directly to the Sun-Times fee based ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That was some great electronics detail. I have incorporated it and it helped to broaden the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. I made some edits to make myself happy with it. However, as a comment, I question the relevance of the "Millennium Park was conceived in 1998" sentence to the fountain (this may be going too far in trying to establish context) and I will say that it may be beneficial to move a generalized description of the fountain to the top of the "Artistry" section, and move some of the technical/measurement details down to the "Architecture" section. --maclean 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Support I share Tony's perplexion as to why this failed last time, although undeniably the recent burnishes have made an excellent article, truly one of out best. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Way overlinked: "cascade", "nozzle", "architect" (twice? ...), "United States", "accessibility"??? I've weeded the silly ones out of the first para; the whole text needs auditing for this. Why is "feet" linked?
You delinked six terms each of which I think should be linked in the context of this article.
architect - linked as a relevant field of work or study for this article. Commonly linked for this purpose in my experience on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) That is a non-reason; I see "structure", "design" and "sculpture" unlinke in the lead—oh dear, splash more blue please.
cascade - in this article cascade is an extremely important term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) It might be extremely important for the article, but so is the word "the". You could equally link "the". The cascade article is quite unnecessary for the reader to understand the topic. Tony(talk)
nozzle - in this article the architectural and technical importance of a nozzle is quite relevant. Read the article and see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I DID read the article quickly, and see no reason beyond the dictionary function, which is inadmissable.Tony(talk)
accessibility - there needs to be a term that the international reader can look up to indicate that special considerations were made for equal access of this fountain. That link serves the purpose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Why not pipe to "Universal design"?Tony(talk)
Just why you insist on this dreadful conversion template I cannot fathom. Do we need "feet ... feet ... feet" (m ... m ... m) rather than just one of each? Tony(talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there an alternative for three dimensional unit conversion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) No, do it manually, for heaven's sake; it's quicker and produces a satisfactory result.
Americans are the only ones to insist on these archaic units; no one else needs a link, and why wouldn't all Americans know what a foot is? Hello? Your attitude to linking is far too liberal—rather, links need to be rationed to the high-value ones, and the appearance of the page made a little less chaotic and easier to read. I will continue to oppose while these links remain. None of your arguments above convinces me in the least. Tony(talk)
If you want to pick a fight about whether Americans using the English system of measurement on English WP, that is a something I don't feel is worth my while. I too wish the world used one set of measurements. However, the point of the link is that the first usage of each unit of measurement is linked. It is simple. That is what is going on. The constructive responses could range from a.)I do not believe any other 3-D templates exist and it would be great if you could get this one spruced up, b.)Template:Foo is a good one, c.)Oh I didn't think about the 3-D conversion issue don't worry I see what the problem is and it is tolerable. A diatribe about whether Americans will continue to forever measure things in silly units is malplaced here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not read WP:OVERLINK in a while and I see the first thing that should not be linked is common units of measurement. Why does every template for unit conversion have a linkability feature? I believe I have attempted to link units of measure in my 80+ WP:FAs, WP:FLs and WP:GAs and never been discouraged. Is this a new thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Criterion 1a—not nearly good enough. For example, just from the lead:
"The fountain and the entire park in general are reputed for their accessibility." This is just odd.
Causality unexplained: "The fondness of the public for the aesthetics of the fountain caused several elements of Chicago's society to voice a unified public opinion against the controversial use of surveillance cameras".
Clumsy previous sentence: "of ... of ... of ... of". And the one before that: "to ... to ... to ... to ... to".
Anyone who's not an architect is "ordinary", are they?
The tired wording "not only ... but also" seems to be like a bodily twitch. Tony(talk) 05:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
With the above you are finally saying things that are actionable and sensible. I can see why you oppose. Thank you for your honest opinion, time and consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose on 1a grounds. It was a struggle to make it through some of the sentences; the article needs a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. Some examples of awkward sentences:
"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." Rewrite.
"Skyward viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan." The viewers are not skyward... I hope.
"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." Costs are not funded.
"The fountain is animated through a continuous dynamic exhibit of lights and electronic images." No, the images on the fountain might be animated but I'm certain the fountain is not animated.
"There are sometimes clips of landscapes or natural waterfalls, but the towers are best known for their display of Chicago residents." What towers? This is the first mention of towers.
"The two towers each are illuminated from within on three sides..." Rewrite.
"The glass is white glass rather than the usual green glass that results from iron impurities." Why state this? I don't think green glass is "usual" anyway. Most readers will assume "glass" is "white glass" unless you specify otherwise.
These are just examples; please have the whole article copyedited. --Laser brain(talk) 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Continuing strong oppose—fails the requirement for professional formatting (trivial links). Now if you're going to be so dogged in your refusal to see that ordinary words such as "accessibility" and "nozzle" should not be linked, please explain how they comply with MOS: "Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see: ...)". Hence, links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read." Just how? And your falling back on this lazy defence that "it's standard practice on WP" to link this or that is most unconvincing. Poor prose is standard practice on WP; we know that only too well, and it doesn't mean that poor prose is acceptable here. TONY(talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1a and MOS fail. More random examples of why the article is not written to the required professional standard.
"mid-spring through mid-fall"—that's ... October to May, yes? See MOS on seasons.
"50 feet (15.2 m) walls"—MOS breach; hyphen required after "50".
"The frame holds all the glass blocks, but it transfers the load to the base in a zigzag pattern."—Logic problem; why "but"?
More ludicrous and distracting links: "pump", "zigzag", "nature". Hello? Why not link EVERYTHING? The whole article needs weeding of these messy blue splashes that detract from the high-value links. TONY(talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.