Wikipedia

Talk:Fountain of Time/GA1

< Talk:Fountain of Time
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Chzz in topic Fountain of Time GA Review

Fountain of Time GA Review edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago38 comments2 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA review. --  Chzz  ►  23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've done an initial check through the article, and made many notes.

Definitely not a quickfail.

I have some issues with prose and a few other issues, but I believe these could be resolved in a short time.

Requests for improvement edit

  • A number of ref links (circa 20) using the docs.newsbank.com domain link to different URLs to the ones recorded - i.e. if you click on it, the URL you end up at is not the one specified in the ref. I saw this using the checklinks tool here.
    • The links take you to the right article. The server may have moved or something, but the correct article seems to be references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • Quite correct; it doesn't need fixing up for GA. I like to see things tidy - it could cause issues for users who arrive at an external link that disagrees with the one they clicked, but I am being picky. I will keep a note to myself and fix them as a maintainance job one day.
  • The gallary picture titles have inadequate descriptions, with many the same ("Front" etc) - not exactly a 'prose' issue, but I'd like something better, even just "Front left", "Front right" - it looks a bit odd with many pics with the same caption.
  • This section needs a rewrite
The Fountain's location in Washington Park near Midway Plaisance places it inside the Chicago Park District. The fountain's location in the Washington Park community area on Chicago's South Side places it amid poor indifferent neighborhoods that are not concerned with the arts."
Because a) Prose, repetition of 'The Fountains location in WP", and b) WP:NPOV. The reference is not sufficient assert 'poor...arts', although it is from a reputable source, it's obviously an editorial article, in the Sunday magazine, and not a news report item.
Repetition taken care of.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I contest whether this is a WP:RS. This is a regular writer for the Chicago Tribune. During the period covered by this database he has over 400 articles in the newspaper. I think the state ment that the neighborhood is poor is valid. Also see, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) and its sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
South Side (Chicago) says "Although it has endured a reputation as being poor and crime-infested, the reality is more varied; it ranges from impoverished to working class to affluent." - perhaps something similar would work here; perhaps using refs from that article?
That is not really true. This neighborhood within the South Side is actually poor. Although the University is nearby, there is not much residential wealth nearby. That statement means that parts of the South Side are not so bad. This part is pretty bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
After further consideration, I agree this is acceptable.
OK --  Chzz  ►  23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • "The fountain was a part of a larger beautification plan for the Midway" - is this Midway Plaisance (which I think is a single street nearby), or another use of the term Midway? Please clarify and wikilink if possible. --  Chzz  ►  23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • ""a Bridge of Arts at Woodlawn Avenue would have been more elaborate than a Bridge of Religion at Ellis Avenue and a Bridge of Science at Madison Avenue." - I don't understand this; is it Woodland > (Ellis AND Madison) ? ie combined? Please clarify.--  Chzz  ►  23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • I will add a map showing the cross streets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
      • Aha, I see! It's an Americanism, where places are referred to as "5th and 3rd" etc, that's why it confused me. Perhaps rewrite as 'the intersection of...' or something, to cater for non-US? --  Chzz  ►  00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • Done
  • In vision, "The partially completed work..." I rewrote the para. I suspect "Ducalion" was another spelling of Deucalion, and why single out this one? Do you agree with that edit?

Notes edit

  • Re. Head section, did read 'First *finished* work of art - I almost changed it to 'completed'; I know this is taken from the ref, but it makes me wonder why they put the caveat 'finished'. If another piece wasn't finished, surely it wasn't the first...so I think it's fair to remove the caveat. Do you agree? I notice the Did you know? column on 29 January 2009 was "that Chicago's Fountain of Time by Lorado Taft is considered the earliest outdoor concrete sculpture" - so a different caveat; was there an indoor one? Should we put 'outdoor' in here?
    • I would not remove the word finished or at least a synonym. I think it is possible to start pouring concrete and not finish an art work. I am not qualified to make any statements beyond the source and for WP:OR reasons do not feel it would be appropriate to do so anyways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm making some changes to improve the grammar and clarity; please think of them as suggestions and feel free to revert them or improve them further.


I will add to the above list as I review.

--  Chzz  ►  15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All significant issues raised have now been addressed,

I'm doing some checking through - image copyright and suchlike,

Please note that I've put a big list of suggestions in Talk:Fountain of Time#Suggestions for future improvement, 2 Mar 2009,

I will put results of my checking here within 2 hours.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm continuing to fix prose and grammar.

I feel there are 2 other issues that need to be addressed;

  • I think that the gallery - galleries - violate WP:IG. I think that images are very important to an article about a 3D artwork, but 19 images is excessive. front3, front4, front7 and front8 are pretty similar; ditto the back pics. Are they significant enough? Taft could perhaps appear in the article (artist), and perhaps another picture could illustrate the part about weather damage - maybe LTFountainOfTime6.jpg? More details about the pictures would also help, because then they would add information to the article.

That looks much better. The inline pics are appropriate, and the 'before' and 'after' adds a lot. DONE --  Chzz  ►  19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • I think that the infobox image is too wide, and distracting. Generally, images should be thumbnailed, although this could be an exception to that due to the aspect ratio,and it's less than the max of 500px. However, WP:MOS says, "Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels". Now, we could consider what 'usually means in this context, but I think a compromise should be reached. Perhaps this (very nice) picture would have more impact within the body, and a different image (father time?) could appear in the infobox.
    • The aspect ratio of the image here probably leads to an exception to the "usually" that you mention. I think the main image should give us a view of the whole fountain as it does. I.E., this is the proper main image, IMO. I don't think shrinking it much would be such a good idea. The current width looks O.K. at the most common screen resolutions ( 1024x768 and 1280x1024).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I'm happy with 400. Good compromise. A bit over MOS, but justifiable by the pic. DONE --  Chzz  ►  19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will try to think of further solutions; please discuss.

--  Chzz  ►  08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

1. Well written?: Pass

Prose now flows well, good coverage.
Meets MOS requirements

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

References check out, support facts, and are reliable sources

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Good coverage of the artist, without going overboard. Maps giving a frame of reference. Good wikilinks. Detailed coverage of topic.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

Presents the facts in a businesslike manner. The statement about poverty is fact, not opinion.

5. Article stability? Pass

No edit wars

6. Images?: Pass Great pictures, with valid copyright and other info. The pics make this article special. 7. Overall: PASS

Congrats, nice work. A pleasure to review it.

Remember I put a load of suggestions in the article talk page, for future development.

Cheers,

--  Chzz  ►  19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fountain_of_Time/GA1&oldid=954768248"