Talk:Jay Pritzker Pavilion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Jay Pritzker Pavilion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Jay Pritzker Pavilion is part of the Millennium Park series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2010.

Unique features?[edit]

The article claims that "the trellis system has unique features," including "[facilitating] sound delivery to a large audience" and using distributive speakers to "allow for lower sound volumes than would be necessary with centralized speakers that would disturb the neighboring residences and business." Neither of these features is unique to this sound reinforcement system! The article could mention them as benefits of this design, but they are certainly not innovations in sound reinforcement, and as such should NOT be presented that way. The article also lists as an innovative feature that "forward facing reinforcement speakers time the relaying of sound so as to make it seem to have arrived directly from the stage with clarity and proper volume levels." Delaying speakers to match each other is good sound reinforcement practice, but it is definitely not an innovation either. I would suggest that these items be deleted from the list of unique features, although they could moved to a section of useful features which are not idiosyncracies of this system in particular. Thanks, --MatthewLiberal 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Also, in the section "Details," there are a few nebulous sentences as follows: "Much like his Experience Music Project in Seattle, WA, it suggests musical qualities. The form is designed to project sounds like a brass instrument." What are the musical qualities that are suggested, and how is the sound system similar to a brass instrument? These thoughts either need to be expanded/developed or removed. --MatthewLiberal 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Another vague idea from the Acoustics section: "The system has received critical acclaim for adaptations of its technologies such as signal processing in a variety of indoor and outdoor venues." This is a good idea, but not specific enough. Anyone who has set up a mixing board indoors and outdoors has used "signal processing in a variety of indoor and outdoor venues," so we need to know what "adaptions" distinguish this use from others. --MatthewLiberal 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

In my estimation in terms of WP:WIAGA:

  1. yes
    (a) yes
    (b) yes
  2. yes
    (a) yes
    (b) yes
    (c) yes
  3. yes
    (a) close - see below
    (b) close- but yes
  4. yes
  5. yes
  6. very well - yes
    (a) yes
    (b) yes

This article looks very good in terms of the requirements, and I am leaning towards passing it. With respect to 3(a), I was wondering if it could be expanded ever so much to cover more information on: the commissioning and design process (this should be available since it is a recent project), and on the site and surroundings. Expanding will be the main task on the way to FA, and I'm trying to think of some advice to offer on how to proceed with that. This property must have some interesting history due to its location and it might be worth writing about what was there before and a little more about its connections to the city and park nearby. Maybe with a little more expansion on the site and design commission, the details of the acoustics might not seem to be too much in detail as I meant by 3(b). Just some discussion to clarify or actioning of these issues and I will likely pass the article in the next few days. D. Recorder 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) I have passed this article for GA, note that expansion is required for the next level, A or FA. Congratulations. D. Recorder 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant Park Music Festival not the Nation's Only Free, Outdoor Classical Music Series[edit]

This is not even the nation's only free, outdoor, classical music series within 200 miles of Chicago. Madison, WI's Concerts on the Square is also free, outdoor, classical music series. Jelloman (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a citation for this claim. Can you provide a citation for your own so we can take a look? --TorsodogTalk 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Headdress & Trellis[edit]

In the lead it says now ...a trellis network to support the sound system and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress. The word headdress is a redirect to the headgear article, which makes no mention of buildings or architecture that I could see. This is an odd word choice and it makes me wonder if it is a direct quote. I also checked wiktionary at wikt:headdress and it does not list buildings in its definitions. If this word is kept, I don't think it should be linked, but I am wondering if it should be in quotes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am too tired - am copyediting what is on PR instead of on FAC. Off to that article - sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I too found the use of "headdress" quite odd. Another concern from that sentence is the word "trellis" itself. Did no one notice that it leads to a dab page? I would pipe it, but I'm not 100% certain that what appears to be the right link to me is, in fact, correct. Unschool 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to have a wikilink to either trellis or headdress, as Gehry's structure doesn't have much to do with the traditional meaning of those. Let's remove such wikilinks. My preference is not to use the word headdress at all, and to use trellis only. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I just searched the web for any kind of architectural usage of the term "headdress" and came up short. The only time the term is used is in relation to Gehry's work, and not by architectural scholars. Its use here should be removed as it is not a univeral architectural term. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was not watching this page. I missed this until now. Headdreass is often used in the articles. Fixed trellis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have delinked headdress and moved trellis (agriculture) to trellis (architecture).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Last PR comments[edit]

Except for the alt text, and perhaps having someone uninvolved look this over for language, I think this is ready for FAC. The PR lasted 66 days, which might be a record. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I like setting records. Is a bot going to update {{ArticleHistory}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The bot that closes PRs does not update it. Not sure if another bot does or not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for an alt text review at User talk:Eubulides Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt text review[edit]

I was asked to look at this article's alt text. It's mostly very good, but let me focus on the few problems I found:

  • The Altviewer output shows that some images are missing alt text. {{Frank Gehry}} and {{Chicago skyline}} need to be fixed.
  • Misspelling: "shint". Maybe do a spell check on the whole article?
  • I agree that the existing alt text is a bit long, and could stand some trimming. Generally speaking, one should trim alt text from the tail (since the most important stuff is listed first), so, for example, you could remove "The background is dark." without losing much. Also, alt text for later images can assume the reader has heard alt text for the earlier images, so (for example) the lead image could described the curved metal trellis and boxy speakers in some detail and the later images can just say "trellis". However, this trimming is lower-priority and I wouldn't worry about it too much, as the existing alt text is quite good.

Eubulides (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I fixed the typo, trimmed things a bit, and added alt text where needed. Will ask someone to check for typos next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Content remarks[edit]

The article interchangeably uses "band shell" and "bandshell" without an obvious pattern for the difference. If there is none, it should be consistently spelled one way or the other. Also, it appears that "great lawn" is not always capitalized where used as a proper noun, although its usage in the lead, i.e. "a great lawn", might be OK. It's difficult for me to determine where the term is intended to be merely descriptive and where it's used as a title. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed bandshell and moved the band shell redirect to bandshell from bandstand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you suggest for the great lawn in the text and captions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked on Google Books and almost all uses capitalize it as "Great Lawn" so I made it that way here consistently. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some prose comments and suggestions[edit]

At the request of Ruhrfisch I have agreed to act as a set of fresh eyes and to check over the article's prose, rather as I might in a peer review. Here are my comments on the lead and the first main section; more will follow over the next few days.

  • Lead
    • "named for Pritzker family member Jay Pritzker." Some indication should be given of the notability of the Pritzker family who are not well known outside the US.
    • "The pavilion serves as the centerpiece for the park..." Needs to specify Millennium Park
    • Clumsy wording: "Pritzker Pavilion is built partially atop and shares a loading dock and backstage facilities with the Harris Theater for Music and Dance, the park's indoor performing arts venue." Try: "Pritzker Pavilion is built partially atop the Harris Theater for Music and Dance, the park's indoor performing arts venue, with which it shares a loading dock and backstage facilities."
    • What do you understand by the term "mainstream" concert?
    • Avoid close repetition of "presented". "...created a legal controversy" would read better. But you must indicate the broad nature of this controversy, if this sentence is to remain in the lead.
  • Design and development
    • "Jay Pritzker's widow, Cindy, was unimpressed with the original design and demanded that Gehry be involved." Far too vague. Although Gehry's name is mentioned in the lead, he needs to be properly introduced and his expertise made clear.
    • "Mayor Daley trademarks" Who is Mayor Daley? (This may seem an odd question, but like the Pritzker family he is not well-known over here. Also, wasn't there more than one Mayor Daley?)
    • What is a "Skidmore architect"?
    • More awkwardness: "The choice of Gehry was a key component of having modern themes..." It was Gehry's acceptance of the commission that was the key component, and "of having modern themes" is weak prose. Suggest "the key component in the modern themes strategy..." etc
    • The Pritzker details should be given eaelier rather than introduced here, mid-paragraph. I'd say this whole paragraph needs some attention as it is a bit of a mishmash of facts without much logical organisation.
    • "the pavilion suggests musical qualities" I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Also, the effect of this paragraph is rather spoiled by its somewhat mundane final sentence.

Hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They are very helpful - I will start addressing them soon, but wanted to thank you now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I got busy doing something else and am calling it a night - will work on these tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the exchange on Brian's talk page about opening a new PR, so I was BOLD and started a new PR and copied these comments there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ugly" mix position[edit]

The new addition of the critique of the "ugly" mix position in the middle of the fixed seats ought to be balanced by a cite saying why it is there. As a hint, Gehry's hands were tied: many artist's technical riders require central mix positions for their sound engineers. A sound engineer mixes best when in the best seats of the audience. Once the sound engineer has staked out that area, the door is open for other tech people such as video camera folk, lighting folk, producers and assistant stage managers to state a need to be "out in the house" as well. I'm guessing, but it was probably the needs of the video cameras that were most responsible for causing the concrete structure to be as prominent as it is. Other mix positions I've seen, ones that don't cater to video, are somewhat sunken so that the heads of the standing technicians are just above audience heads, and don't block sight lines so far back.

The wording as used in the article is faulty—there is no "concrete mixing console" anywhere in Chicago, or anywhere else as far I know. Mixing consoles are generally made of plastic, rubber and metal, with perhaps some wood or glass. The mix position or mixing position or Front of House mix (FOH) is concrete, and doesn't look so terribly ugly to me. :-P At any rate, the one cite by the unenlightened Tribune critic should be countered by a cite detailing why this is so. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is currently a candidate at WP:FAC and an editor there cited this review and specifically mentioned the obstruction from the ugly concrete. As this was an actionable request at FAC, I added parts of the review to the article in two places (also in the Acoustics section). I have changed the sentence to read A review in the Chicago Tribune criticized the mixing console in the midst of the fixed seats as an "ugly concrete structure" and Gehry's "biggest design miscalculation", and called for it be moved.[41] I appreciate your feedback, and it makes perfect sense to me, but I do not know of a source to use to balance this criticism. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Image for TFA April 3, 2010[edit]

Currently the image for this as April 3, 2010 TFA is File:20070919 Pritzker Pavilion bandshell.JPG. This has a non-free rationale (which I do not think it needs as architecture). I wonder if another image would be better on the Main Page though. I think File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day crop.JPG would be better - not sure how the crowd will show up in the TFA box though, so File:JayPritzkerPavillionSP.JPG might be better.

The TFA picture is tiny - 100 px wide - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2010. In the gallery below the images are 120 px wide, so they are slightly larger but at least give some idea. Opinions? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tiny is the key. Big blocks of bold color are easier to see in tiny images; easier than ones with much detail. Of these three, I would throw out the one which shows hundreds of audience members as too detailed. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. Choice one is too cluttered when tiny. I'm ok with the current picture, but I guess I like choice two a bit better. I find the prominent green grass to be a lot more visually appealing than those salmon seats.--TorsodogTalk 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I also prefer choice two, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I was bold and swapped the image for choice 2. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Choice 2. TbhotchTalk C. 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

New Pano[edit]

I like the new pano, but do not think it needs to be displayed so long and I feel the two panos should be spaced in the article. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also like it, but agree that two panoramas in a row at the end of the article is too much (I would also tweak the caption - how is it "ultra wide"?). I see options:
  1. Have just one panorama. Then the question is which one?
  2. Move a panorama earlier in the artcle between sections
  3. Move a panorama to be a smaller version in place of a current image. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park does this in some places.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What if we just move the new one to the bottom of the Events section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Try it and let's see what it looks like. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks O.K., I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)