Wikipedia:Peer review/Crown Fountain/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Crown Fountain[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a year since its last PR and it has since failed at FAC. The last FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3) has all kinds of arguments for and against the article and I would just like a review of the article in preparation for a new nomination.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – These are some thoughts on the prose etc., like would I would offer in an FAC.

  • Delink dates in the references.
  • Don't need a link to the U.S. dollar in the lead.
  • Concept and design: Grant Park doesn't need two links in as many sentences.
  • Artistic design: "The fountain is known for encouraging its visitors splash and slide in the reflecting pool". Should be "encouraging its visitors to...".
  • Video production: Remove comma from "Approximately, 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's course in public art for the project."
  • Typo in here: "with a width far exceeding its heighth...".
  • "This was followed by the a section with the mouth open...". Another glitch.
  • "but now no additial videos are planned." "additial" → "additional".
  • Construction and engineering: Comma needed in parenthetical "now part of Phillips Solid-State Lighting Solutions now called Phillips Color Kinetics".
  • There's a new requirement for featured articles that images have alt text "where appropriate". It will take some time to include alt text for the many photos, but shouldn't be too difficult. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I recall doing some copyediting during a previous FAC - this looks better. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly about images.

  • I have some concerns about images, mostly based on the recent Cloud Gate FAC. There are currently six (or is it seven?) fair use images in the article, which seems like it will raise WP:NFCC concerns at FAC. Specifics on the fair use images follow:
    • The lead image File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG and the first image in the Construction and engineering section File:Crown fountain.jpg are both quite similar (face on the fountain puckering as it spews water). The lead image shows the water hitting someone (kids?) and thus seems to me to be slightly better in terms of illustrating what the article discusses. The Construction section image shows an African-American face and kids playing too, so it might be preferred in terms of illustrating the diversity of Chicagoans pictured. I just can't see both images in the article if it is to pass FAC.
      • File:Crown fountain.jpg is actually a rather recent addition to the article. Either way, one should definitely be removed. Any opinions on which one? --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • One or the other is fine and I defer selection to someone who knows photography better than me. A third consideration about the comparison is that I believe the one with the African American is sharper and higher quality, although the frolicking is not as well depticted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The image at night seems fine to me as fair use as it is the only one to show both towers in detail and the only one at night.
    • The three image sequence using the {{Multiple image}} template is nice, but adds three more fair use images which do not seem justifiabloe under NFCC. I think it could be argued that this does not really add much to our understanding - we already have images of the fountain faces smiling (at night) and puckerng and spouting. I suggested on Tony's talk page that a video might be useful as a replacement here (see Billie Jean, which is a recent FA and has a video of Micheal Jackson doing the moonwalk).
      • I can take a video of the fountain's video pre-pucker, then moving into a pucker, then spouting water. When the weather is finally warm again, I will take this video and replace the three images with it. --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That will be great help in reducing FU images. That would combine three fair use contents into one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I hope that File:20070616 Crown Fountain (6).JPG does not need a fair use justification - there is no video displayed, so I guess it is OK (just shows structure, not art), but it might be a good idea to check with an image expert before any FAC.
    • The various close up images of the nozzle, drains, bricks with LEDs inside all seem to be OK and free (not fair use).
  • The last image concern I have is that in the Cloud Gate FAC, Jappalang pointed out that sculptures which are unique (as this one is) have not been published under US copyright law. This means that the fair use images had to have been published already prior to being used here. My guess is that the same concern applies here. The night time image is from Flickr, which I assume means it has been published. The others seem to be unique to Wikipedia and thus may be problematic. I do not know if opeing a Flickr account and posting the images there would qualify as publication or not. The video could perhaps be on You Tube? I would ask Jappalang or anohter image expert.
    • This could be a pretty big problem. I'll consult an image expert ASAP to see what we should do here. --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose could still be tightened / copy edited. For example on a quick read through, the section header "Commencement and ongoing operation" could just be "Commencement and operation" or perhaps even "Dedication and operation". Minimalists might even suggest just "Operation".
  • Another place I notice was the last paragraph on reception, which could better read as something like The fountain is featured on the cover of Philop Jodidio's 2005 book, Architecture: Art, which notes that although Plensa is considered a conceptual artist, he created a work whose architectural aspects are paramount. Crown Fountain's location juxtapposed with the Historic Michigan Boulevard District's skywall highlights these aspects. Jodidio considers the fountain to be a modernization of the gargoyle theme, and notes that the scale of the enlarged faces humanize the work and challenge the architecture. He also comments that the towers are an integral part of the skyline that have achieved rare permanence for contemporary art.[55] Unfortunately I do not have time to help copyedit with this one.
  • Could the Picasso image be made narrower with the "upright" code? As it is the other fountain images are timy and this is comparatively huge.
    • Actually, I have had some concerns about the images here. For example, does the Picasso image pass WP:NFCC? I feel like it doesn't for this article unless I'm missing something... Also, I think four images for this section is a bit excessive. It might be more productive to show just the Picasso (if possible) or just the fountains. Maybe even just one of the fountains? --TorsodogTalk 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)