Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Millennium Park edit

Millennium Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two more promotions by September 1 to retain its featured status. Although time seems to be against us, I hope for this not to be demoted for too long if we can not beat the clock with this and one more promotion. FAC2 was a recent quickfail due to image issues which have been resolved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination approved with image clearance from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Are all those external links really necessary? I already removed one that was used as a reference. Ucucha 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chicagoist on the photography "ban" goes nowhere for me, but seems to refer to the kind of info that belongs in the article, cited, and not as an external link-- please review external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that link is dead; I'm sorry for not catching it. Ucucha 09:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Link fixed. —Jeremy (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks but that raises another question: FAs are expected to be comprehensive, and ELs should only include content that can't be included in the article for some reason (see WP:EL); why is there no mention of the content in that EL in the actual article, using it as a source instead of an EL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can not see that webpage on my browser, but the article has an entire paragraph on the photography ban issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought about that when fixing the link. The paragraph in the article really makes the link redundant. Although the paragraph focuses on Cloud Gate, which I think a little misleading firstly because all the artworks in the park are subject to the same copyright restrictions, and secondly because the city was actually requiring permits for photography anywhere in the park—Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring issues

Samples only, thorough review for similar needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINKing also continues, and has been a recurring issue in all of TTT noms; at some point, TonyTheTiger, I am expecting you to begin to take responsibility-- as an experienced FA nominator-- for your noms instead of waiting for other reviewers to clean up recurring issues, which creates an unnecessary burden on FAC reviewers and leads to lengthy nominations. At a minimum, Tony1 has mentioned overlinking in most of his reviews of your nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed quite a bit of overlinking, (we edit-conflicted, but I integrated your changes). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose issues, sample:
  • Isn't the "In addition to formal critical review" clause redundant? Other mayors is plural, Gavin Newsom is singular, and why is the link to SF mayor helpful to this article (overlinking)-- that is explained in his article. "Even" is POV, and since the source is a subscription only link, please provide a quote of the text justifying the statement that he "enjoyed" himself and its relevance to the article. I only checked this last section, these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My subscription seems to have expired or something. I have attempted to tweak the other issues, but I think linking a term like SF mayor is fairly standard when the topic is what other civic leaders think about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree-- that link adds nothing to this article, when you've already linked the actual mayor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing, sample only:
    • The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of many cities.[4]
  • But the source merely says that nothing that ambitious is planned for Charlotte-- the source does not support the statement. Please review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tweaked to say "The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary." This seems to me to follow from the quote I gave above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrasing: considering some of the issues above, I'd like to see the exact quote backing this statement:
    • The Financial Times describes the park as an extraordinary 21st century park resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city.[5]
      • The FT online archive is only accessible for 5 years. I can not produce the quote anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are relying on subscription only or online sources that expire, you should be keeping hard copies of those sources so you can backup article content. At any time, other editors can request a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content looks like it wants to be a direct quote, but isn't; how was it paraphrased to avoid plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this further on the FT quote request above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't look to be a direct quote. Relevant sections of the FT article look to be:
      • "His work is just one piece in an extraordinary public park that is set to create new iconic images of the city."
      • "In the previously moribund 25-acre site, Chicago has unleashed artistic liberation. In a city known for its historic skyscrapers with their clean, angular lines, the park offers chaotic curves. In a city known for its green parks, this is a space defined by its objects, not the turf beneath them. The result - a genuinely 21st-century interactive park - could trigger a new way of thinking about public outdoor spaces"
      • "This eclectic mix was driven by the ad-hoc accretion of new projects, led by financial donors. Indeed, this is a uniquely Chicagoan park, the result of a close collaboration between money and power."
—Jeremy (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some of these sample issues have been cleaned up, I am expecting a closer review of the article and its sourcing for similar-- these were samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref. 10 is missing an accessdate and ref. 233 is missing publisher information. Placement of "subscription required" information is inconsistent (refs. 53, 78). Ucucha 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Ruhrfisch

I have told TonyTheTiger I will copyedit this article. I have been a co-nom on FACs for several of the features in the park, but have not made any major contributions to this article directly (besides the image map). I had two questions on the article, one for Tony and one for the image experts.

The question for Tony is: why is there a separate section on the 2009 Pavilion projects? These were a temporary exhibition in Chase Promenade in the park for several summer months, and no longer are present there (something the article does not make clear). Since there have been several other such exhibits in the promenade and park that do not have their own sections, why does this get its own section? Would it make more sense to have a section on special exhibitions or art in the park? I also note that the {{Millennium Park}} template does not include the pavilions with the other permanent features. The template also mentions the Grant Park Music Festival, which has a much longer history, but is only mentioned in three sentences. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.

This is the main article of a WP:FT. It should summarize all the articles in the topic. The WP:FT guys have insisted that the Pavilion projects be included in the topic (over my initial objection in 2009 and renewed objection in 2010). As such it is summarized here on equal footing with all other articles within the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to handle the GPMF. I could expand it here if you feel that is appropriate. In truth I am not sure what the protocol is for a main article of an FT. I do think it be definition should summarize the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of my problem is that it treats the Pavilions like permanent features (when they are not) and does not treat them and the festival the same. What if there were an "Art and music" section that talked about the Pavilions and the music festival (perhaps as subsections of two paragraphs each) and then had a paragraph on other exhibits and concerts / events in the park? Perhaps it could even be called "Use" or "Usage" and also include the current popular culture paragraph (movies and tv shows use the park for filming scenes). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Are you interested in making such a change. Your editorial assistance is, as always, quite welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I plan to copyedit this, starting with the sections relating to articles I have already been a co-nom or done a copyedit on. I will be glad to try this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ce efforts so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YOu are welcome - got another section edited tonight, will hopefully get much more done tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I moved the Pavilion projects subsection and the Popular culture section to a new Use section, after budget. I also added the lead of the Grant Park Music Festival article there as a subsection. Does this look OK (still needs to be copyedited and more refs for the GPMF section)? I am done with copyedits on the 13 Features subsections, but not anything else yet. I was thinking of adding the architects to the Exelon Pavilions and moving most of the sentence on the GPMF from the Pritzker Pavilion section to the GPMF section too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question for an image reviewer is: would File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg be OK for use in this article? I assume so, as it was used on the Main Page when the Cloud Gate article was TFA. If not that, I assume File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or perhaps this image of the sculptor File:Kapoor cropped.jpg would work? More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck that as it was OK on the Main Page and Raeky says it is OK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New questions for Tony
  • In Background the sentence Some sources say that the park was the outgrowth of the exuberance of private sponsors, and others say that Mayor Daley used his power to garner corporate supporters.[27] has one source (although multiple sources are implied) and that does not really say what the sentence says. Can you please provide more / better sources for this sentence? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that I had thought I had seen a source that I would again come across when I added the exuberance part. Although I thought I would remember where I had seen it, I had probably paraphrased something that from memory that won't really be able to find. I have removed this from the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I tweaked it to Mayor Daley's influence was key in getting corporate and individual sponsors to pay for much of the park. which seems to me to be more waht Time was saying (and avoids "some sources" being attributed to a single ref. Feel free to disagree / tweak. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not get this sentence referring to Millennium Park: One of the larger public parks in metropolitan Chicago, it is a showcase for postmodern architecture. Since MP is less than a tenth of the total area of Grant Park, and Chicago has several very large parks and the suburbs do too, how can it be considered "one of the larger parks in metro Chicago"?
  • It might just be that it is late, but I do not see the permeable area claim in the ref Of its 24.5 acres (99,000 m2) of land, Millennium Park contains 12.04 acres (48,700 m2) of permeable area. What exactly is meant by permeable area? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have an RS for that and it is also an artifact that I tracked down to this edit by a WP:SPA. I am not sure of its veracity. We might want to strike it unless we can source it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed it for now - I assume the gardens and great lawn are meant (concrete is impermeable to rain, dirt covered with plants is permeable). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to add a Comments column to the Budget table? My thought was that opening dates etc. could be added to it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess an opening date column would be O.K., but some have completion dates and opening dates and others only have one, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, six of the items in the budget column are not separate features but infrastructure and endowment). Others like the Exelon Pavilions opened on two different dates as they were completed, or Cloud Gate opened with the park, then was finished later. I think it is OK to leave it off - the dates for the individula features are in their sections. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold and moved Lurie Garden up to fourth in the features as it is described as one of four major features in the lead and Features section intro. Tweaked the image layout after that too. On to Budget for copyedits. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am done with copyedits to the Use section - I added two images there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am done with the copyedit. Here are my final points - I am very close to supporting, but have a few issues left. I see I have now made 56 edits to the article. If other reviewers feel this makes me too much of a contributor, I will recuse myself (but feel it is essntially ready for FA now).
    • I would remove the Looptopia material from Use restrictions (I already hid in a comment for now) as I could not find a RS for it. If you can find a RS, perhaps add it back in, but it seems pretty trivial (basically the park is always closed at night, even for an all night part in the Loop). Sentences were The obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew.
    • I am also not sure about including the park's hours and dog policy, but that is your call.
    • Would the Recognition section be better as "Reception and recognition"?
    • I also hid this sentence in Recognition: The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary. - the ref is basically small town folk go to Chicago and admire its half-billion dollar park, but know they can't do that back home. I do not think the original ref is that notable (how many places can afford such a park, but wish they had one like it) and the sentence does not really reflect the ref well.
    • In the same vein, I am not sure I would include the fact that the mayors of Shanghai and SF like the park and/or wish they had one too. Your call.
    • I added some images and was very tempted to add the panorama of Jay Pritzker Pavilion at the end here, as it is in that article. What do you think Tony?
    • Finally, I agree with Sandy on most of the External links being superfluous. I would keep the official map and brochure, the city of Chicago MP site, and the news story archives. The "Virtual tour of Millennium Park" is neat, but really slow to load. If Forgotten Chicago has cool stuff, add it as a ref - you go to the page and there is nothing obvious on MP, and no search function to look for it that I could see. Same with the other material - convert it to a ref or get rid of it. The Awards link should definitely be used as a ref - I would do it, but I am burnt out on MP right now.
  • I have one more little thing to add that I forgot. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors. I hope I have improved the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:58, 11 August

2010 (UTC) OK, I am all done with the copyedit and everything and all of the issues I raised here have been addressed. I have changed to support above. I really need to see this park in person ;-) Thanks Tony for all of your work on these articles, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—the lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, in the first paragraph it says: "Completed in 2004, it covers…", then in the next paragraph we have "Construction began in October 1998 and was completed in July 2004" and "…was opened in a ceremony on July 16, 2004" —does the fact that the park opened in 2004 need to be mentioned three times in the lead? The third paragraph tells us that the proposed budget was $150 million, but he final cost was $475 million, then in the next paragraph (and only one sentence away) it tells us that the cost approximately three times as much as was initially budgeted —I don't think that this information needs repeated. I also think that the sentence on features have changing names is such a minor detail that it doesn't need mentioned in the lead.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have no objection to the changes you suggest. Do you want to take a stab at them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I had a go. I wasn't sure what to do with the last sentence: "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley at first placed much of the blame for the delay and cost overrun on Frank Gehry, who designed several parts of the park". This sentence, to me at least, implies that the next sentence is going to say that the Mayor changed his mind or that Gehry was in some way vindicated. But there is no next sentence. I also can't find this discussed anywhere else in the article; so perhaps we can just delete this sentence. —Jeremy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. If I have to explain myself again i believe that the article meet FA requirements because it is well sourced, gives a perfectly balanced account of the park, addressing the components of the park in turn. I have helped improve previous articles related to Millenium Park at the FAC stage and have offered constructive criticism where it is needed to ensure that the article is the best possible but I certainly do not post "support" unless I really mean it. I find Sandy Georgia's comments on my talk page accusing me of supporting this article as I have commented on Tony's previous FAC's out of order. At the end of the day it is Sandy and co who decides whether to promote an article or not, so I'm wasting my time here anyway. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I found this an overall great article, but there were a couple of issues.
    • The park curfew (the park is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily)[215] and obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew. - this is a sloppy paragraph.
    • Also, you have a couple of two sentence paragraphs. It may not be in the rules anywhere, but I prefer a paragraph to be at least three sentences long.
    • This article takes a while for my computer to load. Could you cut some info from the featues section, which already have spin off articles, out of the main one?

That's all for now. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: The article is 122 kB, but only 44 kB of that is readable prose. There are a lot of refs, which helps make it so big. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • After my copyedit it is 46 kB of readable prose Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning toward oppose: Sorry, but I can already see several problems in the lead: (No longer leaning toward oppose, but not actively supporting just yet.)

  • We don't need to specify the county in the first sentence. People are far, far more familiar with the city of Chicago than with its county. Even Illinois is arguably expendable.
  • The second sentence is awkwardly structured (that...that), and could probably be split into two smaller sentences. There's a lot of information packed inside it.
  • As of 2007, Millennium Park trailed only Navy Pier as a Chicago tourist attraction. Surely there's more up-to-date info?
    • I have tried to find something more up to date unsuccessfully as each element of this topic has gone through FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see if I can find anything. Just out of curiosity, how do they determine attendance figures for Millennium Park, anyway? Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a case like this, it might be safer to say something vague, like "Millennium Park is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Chicago." Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not so sure I understand the logic of going from a slightly dated statement of fact to WP:WEASEL words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:WEASEL doesn't apply. It's still a statement of fact, just less specific. You'd need a more recent ref, but it should be trivially easy to find something useful. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyway, this might possibly be helpful for determining 2010 rankings, though I can't immediately access it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was under the impression that you knew of a way to eventually get access to this. It likely has our info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sure Harold Washington has the article. But I haven't had a chance to go down there, and I probably won't for a few days. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I did manage to go today. According to the article, Millennium Park was second in 2009, with an estimated attendance of 4 million. (Navy Pier was first, with an estimated attendance of 8,050,000.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and Millennium Park, which has become the world's largest rooftop garden What makes it a rooftop garden? I don't even see this explained in the body.
    • Doesn't this sentence cover it: "Millennium Park is considered one of the largest green roofs in the world, having been constructed on top of a railroad yard and large parking garages."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see. I was searching for "rooftop". I'm not really sure that's worth mentioning in the lead, though, since it's only technically a rooftop garden, according to one organization. It's enough to simply mention that the park has won awards for green design. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I could find more mentions as a greenroof or rooftop garden, if that is your point. These terms are common references about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the fact is to remain in the lead, I think it should be moved to a different part of the paragraph. It seems uncomfortably shoehorned into the current sentence, and there's no logical reason for it to be there. It might also be worthwhile to briefly explain why it is a green roof, because that description will be counterintuitive to people who look at the pictures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The park's design and construction won awards ranging from accessibility to green design. "Accessibility" and "green design" aren't awards. You win awards for those things.
  • The completed park has received near univeral praise from critics. This assumes that you've read every published review that has ever existed. Could you reword this? Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I've only commented on the lead. I don't really want this to turn into a peer review. My general impression is that the article could still use some work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated on your talk page, I would imagine they might let this one run another 10-14 days, if we are making progress. I am sure I have mentioned WP:CHIFTD to you before. We are about to lose our projects only FT. We need to get some more FAs to save it. Please comment here now if you have time. Please note that Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has tried to do a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone else had recently copyedited the lead, so I did not tweak it nearly as much as the rest of the article. The "near universal praise" was mine though, sorry. In the course of the copyedit, we looked for attendance figures, which turned out to be pretty difficult to find. The few places that did list them gave no indication of how they were measured. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try to look at at least a few sections of the body sometime this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments (I'm still reading through the article, so I'm not done yet.)

  • A showcase for postmodern architecture, it also features the McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance, Wrigley Square, McDonald's Cycle Center, Exelon Pavilions, AT&T Plaza, Boeing Galleries, Chase Promenade, and Nichols Bridgeway. This reads strangely to me. Shouldn't there be some the's in front of some of those list items?
    • I believe it is more wikified without a series of preceding articles. I have removed the one from in front of McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink instead of adding one in front of the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what wikification has to do with anything. Elsewhere in the body, you do refer to some of these places as "The Harris Theater", "The Exelon Pavilions", etc. It just seems odd to me to see some of these place names without articles. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. added to all.
  • Performers ranging from mainstream rock bands to classical musicians and opera singers have appeared at the pavilion,[52] which hosts physical fitness activities such as yoga. There's no logical connection between the two halves of this sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. You're setting up a false distinction: rock bands and opera singers are also "cultural offerings". Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is activities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's what you had before. I think you need to restructure a few sentences, rather than try to apply a quick fix. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I tried to fix things by removing "a broad spectrum of activities, including" Zagalejo^^^ 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cloud Gate section gets somewhat repetitive in places. I think you can drop "Cloud Gate is wildly popular" from the second paragraph, since you talk about its popularity in the next paragraph. Also, you use the phrase "highly polished" twice within a few sentences.
  • Its use of water is unique among Chicago's many fountains, in that it promotes physical interaction between the public and the water. This is a pretty bold claim. What about the water playgrounds in many neighborhood parks? Can't some of those features be considered fountains? (You know, the things kids like to run through.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was your source in the first place? I see you tweaked the wording, but even that doesn't seem to be supported by any sources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink is a multipurpose venue located along the western edge of Millennium Park in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. It's not actually in the district, is it? I'm sure it's too new to be a contributing property.
  • From June 21 to September 15, 2002, the plaza served as an open-air exhibition space and hosted the inaugural exhibit in Millennium Park. Might as well mention what the exhibit was.
    • Added name and explanation of who it was by, I am not sure if you need the explanation of who the artist was in this article. Let me know if I should take it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pedestrian bridge is the first bridge Gehry designed to be built, and was named for British Petroleum, which donated $5 million to the construction of the park. I'm pretty sure that, by the time the bridge opened, the company was legally just called BP.
    • The company changed its name in 2001, but might have donated the money before changing its name. I changed the article text however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, are you trying to use serial commas? The article is inconsistent.
    • I am not really cognizant of what I do in this regard when writing and am willing to go either way if it is an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it matters either way, as long as you're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the first new performing arts venue built in the city's theater district or downtown since 1929. I remember challenging this at the theater talk page, but never got a response.
  • The Harris Theater has hosted notable national and international performers, such as the New York City Ballet's first visit to Chicago in over 25 years (in 2006). This sentence needs to be restructured. A visit is not a performer.
  • Wrigley Square is a public square located in the northwest corner of Millennium Park near the intersection East Randolph Street and North Michigan, in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. Similar to my comment above. Isn't it too new to be considered part of the district
  • Pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond Chicago have described the Cycle Center as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking. This just comes across as boosteristic. It would be better to actually quote the sources.
  • Something I've been wondering about for a while, but never asked: should it be "Pavilion projects", or "Pavilion Projects"? The article is titled "Pavilion projects", but its first sentence capitalizes the second P.
    • Fixed there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that correct? That looks somewhat awkward (especially when italicized). Did anyone actually call them "the Pavilion projects"? It seems that most sources called them the Burnham Pavilions. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the alternate title to the article. I am not averse to a page move, but keep in mind that this is part of a WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does being a FT have to do with a page move? Anyway, why exactly did you choose to name the article "Pavilion projects" in the first place? Where did you get that from? Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IIRC, I did not create the page and it was thus named by someone else. I think a lot of people have looked critically at the page since it was added as a supplemental nom to the Millennium Park FT and no one really mentioned moving it. However, if you think it should be move that is fine. They don't really have a name in the sense of a name for a show or for works of art, AFIAK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, you're correct, someone else started the page. (And that person has only made one edit this entire year.) I think the article should be moved to Burnham Pavilions, unless you know of any sources that refer to them as "Pavilion projects". That said, that article's title really has little bearing on the main Millennium Park article, so I'll just strike that comment. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything in the "Use restrictions" section pertains to use restrictions (eg, the surveillance cameras).
    • Most use restrictions are restrictions on the public by the authorities. The cameras are a restriction on the authorities by the public.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, that's a cop-out. (No pun intended.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you want the section retitled or the content moved. If moved, where do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't think of a title that would tie everything together, so maybe you should create a new subsection. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, did the city ever install the "less-intrusive" cameras, or did they drop the idea altogether?
  • The Financial Times describes Millennium Park as an extraordinary 21st century park, resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city. It's been established above that this is not copied word-for-word from the source, but it is still very close. Why not just quote the source?
    • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's generally true, but reviews are the sorts of things that should be quoted. (Especially when you're barely paraphrasing the source to begin with.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not one quote. It is three secondary source quotes properly synthesized for use in this tertiary source. If it were a single quote what you are suggesting might be more feasible. Look at the three distinct quotes above that Jeremy submitted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All you really have to do is take individual phrases from the sources, and put those phrases in quotes. You can omit unneeded words with ellipses. It can be done; just be creative. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would not know how to use the ellipses because I do not know what order the above quotes are in at the source. I don't know if Jeremy listed them sequentially, randomly or in order of importance above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Time refers to it as an artful arrangement resulting from a creative ensemble. This is also very close to the source. Why not just quote the source?
    • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at this again, I don't think the text in question adds much to the article anyway. I'd just drop it. Time is already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Timothy J. Gilfoyle's Millennium Park: Creating a Chicago Landmark was an editor's choice of the New York Times Book Review,[259] and the San Francisco Chronicle. I think this is beyond the scope of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zag, where does this nom stand with you now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, neutral, I suppose. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting without reading through the article at least a few more times. (I've only actually read the whole thing once.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it the serial commas? I really don't look forward to doing that, if that is what it is going to take. Otherwise, would you mind taking another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The serial commas aren't a major issue, although it would be nice if that was straightened out. Whatever. I'll just support. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - strong summary article overall, but many minor issues:

  • In the lead: "The completed park has received praise many critics." From many critics?

Support All issues resolved now. Well done. * ... the Chicago Tribune dubbed Gehry "the hottest architect in the universe" cite the quote?

You have to cite directly after the quotation, yes?
Not sure, but I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* ...Pritzker enticed Gehry in head-on confrontations. Enticed and confrontations don't quite match. Face-to-face discussions?

* "The choice of Gehry was a key component in having modern themes in the park." This is not clear. The choice of Gehry led to more modern themes in the park?

* "The park was officially announced in March, 1998" The park did not exist. Do you mean the project was announced?

* "...its broad variety of amenities placed it under the jurisdiction of the city's Public Buildings Commission." Why? What to the amenities have to do with it?

* The "centerpiece" of Millennium Park is the Jay Pritzker Pavilion... Why quote centerpiece? It is a common usage.

* "... and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress." What is a headdress? What is signature Gehry about it?

It's better. But still: what's a headdress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is now linked as a bit of a misnomer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The pavilion and Millennium Park have received recognition by critics, particularly for their accessibility..." There are all kinds of recognition, good and bad. Don't you mean it has been especially recognized for its accessibility?

My point is that "received recognition" does not say anything. I think it's better now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "It was named after Ann Lurie." Who is Anne Lurie?

A little. But what does she have to do with this park and why did they name something after her? Did she donate lots of money? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amount added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The rink is operated by the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs rather than the Chicago Park District." Why? Why is this important?

    • I don't know why but it is relevant as stated in the rest of the sentence "which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
It just seems like kind of bureaucratic trivia as it stands. I mean, does it really matter?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite relevant in the article about the rink. I could take it out here, but am not sure that I should. Will do so upon your request or you may just yank it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The bridge's design enables it to bear a heavy load." What about it? Why is it important?

Highway standards doesn't really explain it, though. Why on earth would a pedestrian bridge be built to highway standards? And what would that actually entail? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an engineer and don't understand why the fact that it is built to highway standards does not explain why it can bear heavy loads. What exactly are you questioning and why do you want more detail in an overview article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is worth making, isn't it worth explaining? If there is something important about the load bearing design, what is it? If not, why mention it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have I made it relevant now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture." Cite the quote.

See above. Don't you have to cite the quote directly? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected as above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "... the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses." You mean Energy star rated?

* "It also serves as a venue for event planning on a rental basis." This does not make sense. You mean people rent it for private events?

* There is a lot of overlinking: loading dock, work of art, bean, mercury, themes, slope, sheet metal, flower boxes, pedestal, Metra (multiple times), pedestrian bridge (more than once), hill, lots, photographer, grant. There are others.

I hope most English speakers know what a loading dock, theme, sheet metal, flower box, and pedestal (among others) are. Why link them?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Many of the captions are sparse and uninformative. Some have periods when they should not.

Sort of. The captions are still not very compelling. For example: "Crown Fountain attracts youthful attendees" does not add much and is not really supported by the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to point out any others that you have concerns with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wrigley square serves as a place of relaxation." "Boeing Galleries serve and an open-air gallery." Surely there is something more interesting to say about these interesting places? Also, as mentioned before, many of the captions that are not sentences have terminal periods when they should not. I deleted a couple. The rest should also be fixed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tired to make the captions more interesting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Why is Zagats survey redlinked in the references? Zagat survey exists.

* Is it really necessary to list four or five citations for the same claim throughout? I realize this is a matter of taste, but it is very distracting in an FA.

OK. But still. Why do you need all of that? Isn't there one really good reference that makes the point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of these items of critical reception is to show that they are the consensus of beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule of course, so I'll strike the quibble. I just wonder, for example, if the fact that Cloud Gate is popular is really so controversial that the consensus of opinion would ever be in doubt.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. I'll support when the overlinking is fixed: why is "Illinois" linked just after "Chicago". Who wants to go to the article on the state when reading about a park in this well-known city? Why is "cost overrun" linked? Is this an obscure term? Why is "pedestrian bridge" linked? "Flower boxes"? "Sound system"? "Headdress"? ("Headgear, headwear or headdress is the name given to any element of clothing which is worn on one's head." ... Is that article remotely useful to the readers?). "Naming right"? "Christmas caroling"? "granite"? "reflecting pool"? Themes? Dualism? "Universal design" is unclear, and the readers shouldn't have to hit a link to find out the definition of a term. "Perennials", "bulbs"? WP is not a dictionary. Needs to be fixed throughout.
    1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Acres should not be converted to metres squared. Otherwise, why not feet squared first? Either ha or km2.
    1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The area had previously been occupied by"—"was previously occupied by".
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MoS breach in "March, 1998" (no comma).
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Chief executive officer (CEO)"—small c. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per TonyTheTiger's request, I removed all instances of voerlinking that were specifically mentioned here. I also removed the links to the features in captions and duplicate links to periodical like the Tribune, Sun-Times, Time, Financial Times, and USA Today in the refs. diff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice work all round. Any chance of starting a stub on "Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs" to avoid the prominent red link? Tony (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that go linked. We can't have articles for every department in every mayor's office. I just delinked it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Finetooth Comments. I had not read this article before today. It's quite an impressive piece of work, and I'm leaning toward support. I made a fair number of proofing changes as I went, but I still have a short list of quibbles.

Grant Park Music Festival
"The festival began when the music shell was located in its original location and moved when it was relocated." - This is ambiguous because it might mean that the shell was moved. It's also redundant, since we already know when and where the festival began and when and where it moved. I think you could delete the sentence to solve the problem.
removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and it has consistently enjoyed the efforts of many of the world's leading classical musicians" - Since the festival can't "enjoy", maybe "and many of the world's leading classical musicians have performed there"?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Burnham Pavilions
"They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan, and were meant to symbolize the city's continued pursuit of the plan's architectural vision with contemporary architecture and planning." - To avoid repeating "plan" three times in this sentence, could the last part of the sentence simply be deleted? Suggestion: "They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan."
I cut out the last five words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Height restrictions
"The height of the Crown Fountain, which is also exempted as a work of art, has been described as stemming from a "pissing contest" with other park feature artists." - If the joke is intentional, OK, but if "fountain" and "pissing" have been juxtaposed accidentally, maybe another word or phrase would be better. Or you could just delete the sentence if it adds nothing important.
Pissing contest is an American English idiom and a quote from the source as depicted by the quotation marks. Wiktionary sort of describes the idiomatic use, but not exactly. I don't understand what correction is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I leave this one for you to decide. I know what a pissing contest is and that the original meaning refers to a contest to see who can literally piss furthest. The writer you quote was probably making a joke about the similarity between a piss fountain and a water fountain, but I can't be sure because I don't have the source document. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that some readers will think "piss fountain" when they read the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use restrictions
"As a sponsor, Toyota's name was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage." - Since the name wasn't the sponsor, could this be recast? Suggestion: "The name of Toyota, one of the sponsors, was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage."
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Financial issues
The caption, "A corporate underwriter's stone marker (SBC Plaza is now AT&T Plaza)" is a bit mysterious. What does SBC stand for, and what is its relationship to AT&T?
I have linked the appropriate terms.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Citations 195, 196, 197, 198, and 201 have non-conforming date formatting.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker spots three new dead urls in the citations.
Swapped in archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Three images in the article displace subheads or edit buttons on my computer screen. The Millennium Monument image does not fit inside the Wrigley Square subsection. The Boeing Galleries image displaces the Chase Promenade subhead. The Chase Promenade image does not fit inside the Chase Promenade subsection. The images could be shrunk or removed or moved to a new location within the article. I understand the desire to illustrate everything and to put the illustrations next to the texts they relate to, but a cluttered layout is off-putting. You might be able to stack three images in the Budget section or combine short subsections to make larger subsections with room for illustrations.
It is pretty difficult to optimize appearance for all screen resolutions. I am pretty satisfied having the images adjacent to the text with mild issues it causes. This is an acceptable tradeoff, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Might be a special case. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support. An impressive article, as I said above. I enjoyed reading it, and I would like to visit the park. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 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.
  1. ^ King, John (December 9, 2005). "San Francisco: Mayor widens vision to urban architecture. He doesn't want a 'dumbing down of quality' in design". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  2. ^ King, John (August 12, 2006). "Mayor of S.F. Looks Eastward For Urban Inspiration: Winds of change blow from Chicago". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  3. ^ "China's image in the heartland". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. May 12, 2005. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  4. ^ Spanberg, Erik (August 1, 2008). "New agenda on open space: Study of uptown park plans is expected to highlight need for more". Charlotte Business Journal. American City Business Journals, Inc. Retrieved August 8, 2008.
  5. ^ Daniel, Caroline (July 20, 2004). "How a steel bean gave Chicago fresh pride". The Financial Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_Park/archive3&oldid=1136096533"