Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 23 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

Jay Pritzker Pavilion[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Toolbox

This FAC is an attempt to qualify Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park for a promotion from WP:GT to WP:FT on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. It has resulted from a collaborative effort between me and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), who has been quite involved in this template article after volunteering to create a great map for the articles. I had done a lot of research on this article and needed his copyediting expertise. I also hoped to get him involved in the article that could potentially bring success to WP:CHIFTD. The article has also benefited from copyediting by Michael Devore and image assistance by Torsodog. Torsodog was also helpful in the longest-running WP:PR that I have ever been involved in (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1), which started in September and closed in December and which was followed by Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2. I think the article is now of sufficient quality to be a WP:FA and am nominating it for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank Brianboulton and Doncram for their helpful suggestions in the second peer review and Eubulides for looking at the alt text, as well as those Tony thanked above (and Tony for including me in the nomination). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.citymayors.com/
      • It is a professional think tank.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • this makes it reliable on architectural matters? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Ealdgyth. The citymayors website is used as a ref for the location of Millennium Park and a very brief history of the site before development. The first chapter of Gilfoyle's book is also used as a ref here, so if need be the citymayors.com ref could be dropped, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, then. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, I removed it just now - not sure what is holding up this FAC, but this was about the only unresolved thing I could find. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Delacoma ref needs a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I carried out a detailed peer review last month, since when various adjustments have been made to the article. Among material added is this sentence: "docents are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended." "Docent" is by no means an everyday word, and I think its use here unjustified, particularly as the link (which 95% of your readers will need to use) is spectacurlarly useless for your purposes, dealing with a different kind of docent. I strongly advise changing the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended meaning is Museum docent. I have swapped out docent for the better link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I forgot the American English / British English confusion over wikt:docent. I changed the lead to read ...trained guides are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended. and then in the body of the article left Tony's link to museum docent but tweaked the wording: The festival is represented by a staff of trained guides, called docents, that field questions and provide educational talks during the rehearsals.[89] Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, hoping to support: I gave this a fairly extensive review at its most recent PR and hope to be supporting soon. However, I have a few issues which are just a bit more than quibbles, some which are carried over from my review.

(later:) I am satisfied with the responses to my points, detailed below, and have moved to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design and development section: Some information needs to be reordered. We should know about the Pritzker family's decision to fund the project, and who Jay Pritzker was, before being told that his widow was unimpressed with the original design. I know some of this is covered in the first para of the lead, but the lead should be regarded as a separate entity from the body of the text.
    • Thank you for pointing this out. I have rewritten the section some to introduce the Prizkers, their prize and Gehry first, then discuss the pavilion design. It is not 100% clear to me when the Pritzker family / Cindy Pritzker decided to fund the pavilion. My understanding is that the city made a very preliminary design first, and then shopped it around to potential donors. This is what Cindy was unimpressed with. She was interested in the pavilion idea, but wanted to have a Gehry-designed bandshell. Tony, is this correct? If so, I will try to make this clearer in the article too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have it cited clearly to a statement with this sentiment. We can only summarize the secondary sources as you have. You seem to have the idea although you may have the wording a bit close to the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I have rewritten the statement to avoid any appearance of plagiarism, and just used the direct quotation about CIndy Pritzker mandating Frank Gehry's redesign. As a note to reviewers, I do not have access to the printed sources that Tony used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an experiment, I have combined the second and third paragraphs, as I think this better integrates the introductory info on Pritzer with the main theme of the section. By all means revert this if you think it doesn't work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I think that it does read better this way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Note: After a further reading of the Design and development section I was still unsatisfied with it, so I have done further copyedits and text rearrangement. In particular I have moved what I think is the main declarative sentence for the section to the beginning, and made a few adjustments later on to protect the chronology and maintain the narrative flow. Personally I am happy with the section now, but please say if I have inadvertently created problems. Or tweak as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It seems fine to me - thanks very much for your edits, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acoustics section: tiny point - remove redundant "also" from final line of second para. Overall, some of the language in this section is a little too close to being promotional. We have two "innovatives" and one "unique features". This language needs to be toned down.
    • Thanks, I rewrote parts of this to try and remove the promotional language. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversies:
    • What was the outcome of the Petrillo suit?
      • As far as I know, no suit was actually filed (they just threatened to sue according the article cited). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Previously when a new perforance venue was added to grant park the Petrillo name was transferred to it. In this case the old structure was kept so there was not much to argue about, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Tony - do you have reference(s) for this? It is not in the Petrillo Music Shell article that I could see, but if there is a ref, we could add a sentence saying this to this article to make the reasoning of the Petrillo family clearer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Amos, a classically trained musician who chose only piano and organ accompaniment on her concert, earned positive reviews as the inaugural rock and roll performer in a venue that regularly hosts classical music." Where is the "contoversy" in that statement?
    • I am unconvinced that the disputes surrounding bottles and beverages amount to a "controversy", or indeed are significant enough to warrant mention, at least in this level of detail.
  • Events: Shouldn't Obama be recognised as the surrent US president? Otherwise the section could perhaps lose 100 or so words of froth (e.g "on Saturday mornings in the summer, the Great Lawn under the trellis hosts workouts such as yoga and pilates", "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months", the seating kerfuffle at the Decembrists' concert).
    • Added (who was later elected United States President), which is probably better than saying current President because that will become dated at some point. Not sure how that relates to froth. The yoga and pilates is a big deal. We should probably have a picture of that. Would something like this benefit the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That particular picture does not do a lot for me - it is hard to tell what the people are doing. I will take a look at the other items. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I have removed the "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months" sentence and the one about multimedia in Nove 2007 (as it was mentioned again later in the article). I trimmed the yoga and pilates sentence, but kept it as it is not something you'd expect at a bandshell. At the Decembrists paragraph, I combined three sentences on attendance into one, removed anopther sentence, and trimmed what was left. I kept the rest because it mentions a few things not found elsewhere in the article: season ticket holders for the seating section and barriers between the seats and Great Lawn. Here is a diff. Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: "the supporting backside along Randolph Street". Users of AmEng may be unaware that in BritEng "backside" is a euphemism for what Americans call "ass", so you can see how this sentence reads oddly to us Brits (especially the bit about it being "not pleasing to the eye." Any chance of a reword?
    • Whoops! It can have the same meaning in AmEng, but that did not occur to me before - thanks. Changed to the supporting north side of the structure along Randolph Street - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the peer review and your comments here - will work on the points you've raised next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help at PR and now and for the support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments copied from my user page) Hi. Good to see this at FAC. Can I recommend you add File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg as the main image in the infobox instead as the main image should be an overivew of the whole complex rather than a restricted view in a concert.... I haven't switched images myself as I know you are often very strict with image layout in the article. If possible I'd recommend somebody creates a montage which could combine the two images or even one or two others in the main image, but I think File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg would be far better as the main than the one at present and immediately gices an understanding of the site... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current main image was chosen at a recent PR to show the audience and the trellis system simultaneously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the lead image shows the view of the pavilion most concertgoers see. While I like the view from the the skyscraper (and note that it is already used as the second photo in the article), it is a poor view of the iconic stainless steel proscenium, so I prefer the current lead photo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried making the requested double image and adding it to the article's infobox. Also moved the map right and down a bit to avoid the longer infobox (may be better on the left). What does everyone think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As poor quality as the original main image was, the sky view is terrible quality and pales in comparison to the other one. I will tolerate the double image if there is a strong preference, but that image is not so great. It has the proper perspective, but I fear people may look at that image and question the article's FA-worthiness. The image belongs in the article, but I prefer File:View of the Chicago skyline from 340 on the Park.jpg as a view from afar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a composite with the current top image and the side view you like better (probably crop the bottom and left side of that a bit), but I want to make sure that it is OK with Dr. Blofeld before putting the work into it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the side view might replace the current overhead, which could be moved to the first image position in the text. Maybe a composite would be O.K., but you are still working with a low quality image for the overhead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You could try it, see what it looks like. Yes the quality is not as good on the overhead. But when I said about making a montage I was thinking of more like four images arranged two by two and the scaled down. I would not object to such an arrangement or to see a side view of the pavilion... Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to swap in the higher quality side view. I can not stand to see such a low quality image as a main image on an FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. It looks like Ruhrfisch used some sort of two image montage. I will wait for him to make the switch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I am not 100% sure what you mean here - sounds like you want to add another image to the article. I would like to hear from Dr. Blofeld, who requested the composite originally. I do not think there is room in the article for an additional image, but perhaps the current side view (from WIllis Tower) could be removed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of a montage like File:CityChicagoMontage.jpg but with say, four images??. You could include this image... A good stage image etc... Plenty of choice from flickr and the commons to compose a high quality montage... Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like the former, but the latter is a great shot of the much talked about rehearsal from the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I will try to make a two by two montage with the current lead image (crowd at Beethoven's Ninth), the rehearsal image from Dr. Blofeld, the aerial side view Tony likes, and one other. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Then, I would move the overhead view of the park to be left aligned by the second paragraph of the main text, which is a less high profile position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about File:JayPritzkerPavillionSP.JPG as the fourth image in the montage? Or is there something people want specifically to be shown? Let's wait and see how the article layout looks with the montage then put the aerial back in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you could lay the montage out like the main Chicago image and have three along the top and then use the long flickr image along the bottom that Tony likes. Basically like the Chicago one but without three images underneath so there are four images three and then one. A trial error really, see what looks best.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I did not like that one. However, if we are going for a montage, we should try to get consent for the Yoga image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a two by two montage as originally suggested by Dr. Blofeld above. Tony, for now I will make it with the similar free image I suggested as the fourth image above, and if you want to ask for permission on the yoga image I can add that later in its place (if they release it). Dr. Blofeld, the Chicago composite is displayed only 315 pixels wide. The three images side by side are all vertical format, so having them each only about 100 px wide is OK. My fear is that three horizontal images side by side would look too small. I can try to add the panorama to the bottom of the two by two montage I make. My thought it that we already have a stunning panorama at the bottom of the article and I like that, not having a tiny panorama at the bottom of the lead image montage. Let's see how it looks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made a composite of four images and added it to the article. I am not good at writing alt text quickly so left that undone for now - if people like it, I can add it. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks great. I still hope to get an image of the Yoga in the article. Next summer I or Torsodog will have to get one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Big improvement, thanks for doing that. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added alt text for the composite. I restored the caption and alt text for the aerial view, so that was (I believe) checked in the image review. I will ask ZScout to review the new composite (all four images in it are on Commons too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is (unnecessary) repetition within close proximity when you say the Pritzkers donated $15 million twice. I think you only need to mention this once, at least not so close to each other. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the end, budget limitations and architectural aspirations caused compromises that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete". A little awkward "caused compromises", in their most straightforward form" , I'm also not sure what you mean exactly by "architectural aspirations" etc, lack of architectural ideas or what? Surely bare casing is unlikely to be a case of lacking ideas? Please clarify this, maybe something like "In the end, a tight budget forced the developers to leave parts of the structure uncased, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete." or something like that.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I read aspirations as plans (do not have the print source) and changed it to In the end, budget limitations led to compromises with the original architectural plan that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete. Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pritzker Pavilion is the first permanent outdoor installation of the LARES system in the United States. ". Citation needed to support such a strong claim. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I added a ref - it was already used for at the end of following sentence, but this way it is clearer which ref is used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could use this source to comment that some people criticised the obstruction from the "ugly concrete", (near the bottom of Tribune article). Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, it is very specific criticism of the placement of the sound console But the biggest design miscalculation was Gehry's locating the computerized sound console at the center of the seating area. This ugly concrete structure obstructs views and must move. I will add a mention of it to the article (also talks about the sound not being balanced well on opening day concert). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added von Rhein's critical review of both the opening night sound quality and the ugly sound console to the article (two places). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Might just want to check to see if there are any other criticisms so balance it out a bit but seems OK.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the terms "ugly concrete structure" and "computerized sound console" are conflated in the Tribune article. The reviewer presents them as one and the same thing. Actually, the ugly concrete structure is a wall surrounding a platform topped by a clumsy, boxy wood and canvas, gray-painted rain and sun cover which moves forward or back in a track to enable the sound operator to see what is on the LCD displays of the "computerized sound console" and to protect it from rain. The mixing console is atop the concrete platform and under the boxy covering. Without the horrible-looking boxy cover, the sound crew would not be able to see to operate the Digico D5 console in the daytime because of glare. If they had selected an old-school analog mixing console, there would not be this problem. Operations in twilight and darker are okay for the crew. Those times would only need the cover for rain. It's hideous, and blocks views, as is clearly seen here, here and here in these photos and here in this seating layout. By the way, the Pavilion calls this structure the "sound booth" which is where you would go to get assisted listening devices. In the article, you could write that, if he could, Gehry would "scrap the big box of a sound booth that sprang up like a weed in the center of the pavilion's seating," that is, if you think this source is reliable enough. That section of the construction is Beeby's design, not Gehry's, but the clumsy sound booth awning may be an ad hoc design by the sound contractor. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I changed the sentence to A review in the Chicago Tribune criticized the "ugly concrete structure" surrounding the mixing console in the midst of the fixed seats as the pavilion's "biggest design miscalculation", and called for it be moved. I think the Reader is a reliable source and will add the Gehry statement next. I also found two books on positioning the mixing console here and here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Now that my concerns have been addressed I think this is featured quality. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the sound console and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I leaned in and performed some fixes per guideline at WP:DASH. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for doing that! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out - it has been fixed (was added since the FAC began). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion I'm seeing a bunch of URL problems with redirects, a truncation, a 404, an expiring link, a login required, registrations required and a dead link. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, one of the supposed deadl inks (Chicago FAQ) still works, the other one (Chicago 2016 Olympics) is gone, so I commented it out - the Sun-Times ref backs up what it says anyway. I added "subscription required" to the three restricted access refs (Economist and Financial Times). The rest of the problems are, for the most part, News Bank refs, or a few direct links to the newspaper's websites. Since the publication data for all of these refs is also given, even if the internet version disappears, they are still OK as refs (someone could look up the paper on microfilm, for example). I am not sure if NewsBank is having a problem or what. Tony, can you figure this out? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about the newsbank links. Current refs 50, 52 and 53 open, but 51 does not. Trying to figure out what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the problematic newsbank links. Let me know if you are having any more problems with them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. I note the link checker seems to turn all NewsBank links green and still says the Chicago FAQ is dead (though it works). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lookin' good, folks. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion/archive1&oldid=1078801794"