Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 14 September 2009

Crown Fountain

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

• Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4

I am nominating this for featured article because we have attempted to address the concerns of prior WP:FACs and hope to make progress toward WP:CHIFTD. Namely, Torsodog has provided a video which eliminated the need for a series of FU images. We are willing to discuss any further image removals and address other concerns that arise. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that this would be the first WP:FA for WP:GLASS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Last month both Ruhrfisch and Giants2008 reviewed this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed what you wanted. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, except that the wrong syntax was used for the lead image so its alt text didn't work. You can check this sort of thing by clicking on the image's properties with your browser after making your edits. Also, since it's the lead image for a weird-looking object, there's a special obligation to describe the visual appearance to the visually impaired, so I added more detail as I was fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I supported last time< & still think it meets FA standards. Looking at it again, the "video production" section could be made clearer as to the total time time taken per face, and what the water does when. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have revised the text based on my interpretation of conflicting information in the source, which at one point suggests that most of the video is at one-third playback and another saying that the entire 5-minute videos are alterations of an original 80-second video. If you feel I have misinterpreted the source let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about the source, & I don't necessarily see "conflicting information" there. It just isn't clear. Is 5 minutes in the section? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The source says the following things:

• And with the unique treatment Plensa was after -- vividly alive, yet slowed down to one-third normal speed
• And time had to be stretched too. "Jaume's original idea was that each person would be on the screen for 13 minutes -- thank God we were able to talk him out of it," says Manning. "It's five minutes now." So Manning devised a scheme in which his team could shoot each person for only 80 seconds, then turn that it into five minutes. Each chunk, or sequence, was synchronized to match the mechanism of the fountain, for a total of five minutes for each face. "The period leading up to the mouth opening gets stretched in order to make it last four minutes, then there's another section that gets stretched to make it last 15 seconds, and then when the mouth is actually opened that gets stretched to make it last exactly 30 seconds. And then, finally, there's a smile at the end that gets stretched to make it last 15."

Now the text says the following: The basic 80-second videos are played at one-third speed, running for a total of 4 minutes. Then there is another subsequent segment where the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a section with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a smile after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you have just added the "4 minutes" bit. But don't expect the reader to do maths; say it's a 5 minute sequence somewhere. And how does the water running down the face fit in? Is that all the time? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I found another quote that helps me make sense of the time totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's much clearer, & I see the "fountain" sub-section too. Move to

• Support per above (unless anything drastic comes up below). Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• All the refs to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/ deadlink on me.
  • The SkyscraperPage building database has been down for maintenance reasons since August 19, and may be down for a few more days. But to replace the links, this data of the tallest buildings in the United States and Chicago by architectural height from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (which is widely regarded as one of the most reliable skyscraper resources) could be used. Cheers, Rai•me 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ultrapolisproject.com/Tallest_25_Skylines_Cities.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I changed the source and removed the remaining controversially sourced material.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Gave it a partial look at the peer review, and am picking up where I left off. Found a few picky things, but the article is in fairly good shape overall.
• "The process used sand and soda ash heated to a temperaure of 2,600 F and "gathered" with large clay ball resembling a honey dipper." Should it be "a large clay ball"?
  • I believe it is correct. Are you unfamiliar with the term honey dipper?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh wait. I see you are asking about the missing "a". Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, don't know how the clay ball got in there. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• "The structure was a challenge. At first, they had considered switching to plastic blocks". Is "they" supposed to refer to the design team? If so, the first part of this could be changed to say so for clarity.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Operation: "A Barco show controller selects the sequence of faces one at a time and also determines a random tower lighting selection...". Redundant word that can safely be chopped.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Controversies: "The city claimed the cameras, similar to those used throughout city...". Add "the" before second "city".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Critical reception: Double-check the spelling of jumbotron. I think there are a couple of capital letters in it.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is "juxtapposed" a typo? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support pending media review. Article seems to be pretty well-written and well-sourced. There are a few non-free media files included, so I want to see a completed image review before fully supporting. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on copyedit by Unschool (talk · contribs)

Hmmm. Does this work like a regular discussion page? Am I to respond with my justifications, or am I to make corrections? I shall presume that I should reply to each point. Unschool

Typically, you would place comments for me the nominator. However, since you jumped in and edited without commentary, I am just noting contentious actions here because discussion might evolve and it should be recorded here as part of the summary of discussions for the promotion consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the detail of the specific dates that the fountain is open from the article (May 1 to approximately October 31).

I suppose the detail should not have been removed from the article. If it hasn't yet been restored, I will do so. However, I do not believe it belongs in the lead; it's simply unnecessary detail. I'll find an appropriate place for it in the body.Unschool

It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed the following from the main body of the article (Crown Fountain was the most controversial of all the Millennium Park features.)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did, and I think the article is better for it. I placed the sentence in the lead, where it fit beautifully, and the paragraph whence it came is literally undamaged by the removal. That sentence was a major point of the article, and as such it belonged in the lead. Unschool 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I didn't (and still don't, really) understand the process around here. Yes, I am done with the article; I just touched it up a bit and then moved on. Didn't realize I was gumming up the works around here. Unschool 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I supposed to strike out some lines? Do I strike out everything I wrote, and/or the replies to what I wrote, or what? Unschool 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike any line that you think has been resolved. Actually, those are my comments and questions to you, so I strike.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question (if it's okay to put a question here)

This one is pretty good, too. Unschool

I'd be okay with any of the three of which I spoke positively: wildcat dunny, sergemelki, or albany tim. Unschool 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is going to be reviewed by an image specialist. If I recall, there may be some limitations regarding the resolution of fair use images. So the one above that you ruled out for lack of resolution might need to be reconsidered for its clarity and vibrance. We might have to scale back any selection to a modest resolution to keep in line with WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tony is right. Since these images are used under fair use, we cannot use the highest resolutions available to us. If you still want to change out the image, we can, but I would not use any image higher than the "medium" setting on flickr. I personally don't have a problem with the infobox image, but if everyone agrees that another one is better, I can switch it out. --Torsodog 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I've got a lot to learn about that stuff. Thanks for trying. Unschool 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG has the purpose of "visual illustration of the water spouting of the Crown Fountain" which appears superfluous in the presence of File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg, which does exactly the same thing. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why are both needed?
    • Is it O.K. to have an .ogg as the main image? If so, I am fine with the replacement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not aware of anything disallowing or dissuading an .ogg as the "main image". Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I have queries in on the talk pages of SandyGeorgia‎ (talk · contribs), Karanacs‎ (talk · contribs) and Raul654‎ (talk · contribs) on this issue. I have asked them to respond here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
          • No responses from any of the experts at FAC. I have never seen an .ogg as a main image. Have you?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Karanacs‎ declared this out of his area of expertise and said to just follow your advice. I have moved the video to the main image position. I have never seen a video as the main image before, but will go along. Waiting on Torsodog to edit it down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg - NFCC#3B requires minimal extent of use. Why are all 50 seconds of the source YouTube video being used when a clip of shorter length (e.g. the first 10 seconds) would convey the same significant meaning?
    • I will leave this to Torsodog. I would not know how to chop the video.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I have not heard back from my co-author, so I have posted a query at Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Clipping_a_video.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I was away all weekend and I am currently at work now. I will cut down the video to ~10 seconds when I get home from work if someone hasn't already done so. --Torsodog 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:20050531 Crown Fountain at night showing dualism.jpg - Why could depiction of dualism not be conveyed by an image of the towers' flanks? A vantage that does not contain the screen image would be free; NFCC#1 disallows non-free content when free content could be created. Эlcobbola _talk 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought there was value to the reader in seeing the night time view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't disagree, but night views (this one doesn't have a compatible license, but it's proof of concept) don't have to be non-free either. Even if the two purposes need to be separated into different images, two free images are better than one non-free (and required). Эlcobbola _talk 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I am confused now. You are asking us to depict dualism in a different way, I believe. However, your proof of concept depicts the back of one fountain and does not depict dualism. The only way to show dualism is to have two fountains in the image at the same time. There are two options both of which show the interior face. First, you can stand behind one with the face of the other visible. Alternatively, you can stand on the side and catch both at the extreme ends of a landscape (probably wideangle) shot with both faces visible. This option shows one face and is the minimal fair use depiction of dualism. This depiction of dualism was chosen because it also depicts the night time view without an additional image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The proof of concept was only for a night view, as your previous response indicated that was a concern. The germane issue is that a wide image of the towers' flanks will depict dualism (two towers facing one another) without showing the non-free displays. Whether such an image is taken at day or night is unimportant. If the available angles are indeed such that a display is unavoidable, use a photo with the screen off or one to which de minimus applies (e.g. this crop). Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • O.K. so you are saying that having two images which do not show the faces to depict night viewing and dualism separately is better than a single image which shows one face that depicts both elements simultaneously in terms of applying WP:NFCC. Is that correct? For a subject like this shouldn't we be allowed two or three fair use images? If not, I am willing to remove the offending image if I can get permissions for the images you suggest or if Torsodog (talk · contribs) can shoot the proper shots.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
            • P.S. I have sent flickrmail queries for licensing consent for both of the images that you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
              • I have obtained licensing consent for the night time view, but not for the dualism view yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
              • In the absence of a response on the dualism photo I have searched flickr to find other options. There are many better pictures. My first choice is this one. I have sent a licensing request. I will send others as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
              • If that photographer does not consent, we have several other options preferable to the dualism image you showed. They all require licensing consent. Here are the other options:

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/54736137@N00/2542957244/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooksba/2861221675/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomwilliamson/3027966205/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/anorwood/19021425/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/aquistbe/353249206/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/mister_sheep/511026135/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/carsonjgregory/541453297/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/budreauphoto/1561578182/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/evanblaser/2546949633/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyandharry/2657508602/

                http://www.flickr.com/photos/millermz/2748582652/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

←I have obtained consent and have swapped out the offending image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Opposing towers that are 50 feet (15 m) tall represent Plensa's theme dualism at night facing north with water cascading|alt=Night view of the fountain shows water cascading, ground lighting and face video" This caption is a bit of a run-on. If it's a sentence, it should have a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How is that fix?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, much clearer. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)