Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive3


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:18, 15 November 2008.

Cloud Gate

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog 

Nothing actionable remains from prior FACs. This may be the best article in the Millennium Park WP:GT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg and Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg marked as free and nonfree? Giggy (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See previous FACs. The photos are derivative works meaning that there is more than one person's copyright to take into account. —Jeremy (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Cloud_gate_construction.jpg and Image:Tented_cloud_gate.jpg have permission for Wikipedia use only, which is not enough per the first paragraph of WP:NFC. See here. These will need non free fair use rationales if no permission is obtained. Giggy (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I obtained written consent from the author through email which I then forwarded to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Permission was obtained. --TorsodogTalk 13:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)'
 * I looked over the conversation at the commons, and quite honestly I don't know what you want me to do. If you could just lay out where I need to send the permission emails, I would gratefully send them. I am getting seriously burned out trying to get these new licenses at every new FAC and have very little expertise in the area to begin with. --TorsodogTalk 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially we need a permission that says it's not just for Wikipedia use for but free use in general (see WP:Requesting copyright permissions). You've sent it to the right place, it's just that the emails you've forwarded have not contained the information required. Sorry =\ Giggy (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of license that I can apply to simply make them OK only for Wikipedia use? Or do I need to contact the author again? --TorsodogTalk 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Information about images in content review processes can be found at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't; all of our free content licenses (ICT/FL) are for free use everywhere, not just on Wikipedia. If the image is not licensed for free use everywhere then it's, for our purposes, non free. (See also the Commons [Wikimedia free image repository] policy on this.) Giggy (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. With all your help, I think I have finally gotten what is needed to publish these images freely on Wikipedia. I got written consent from the author that the images can be published here under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, and I forwarded the conversation to permissions. Let me know if there is anything else I need to/can do to help this along! --TorsodogTalk 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment My comments are confined to prose and general issues, since I don't know enough about image rules to contribute to that aspect. At present my remarks don't extend much beyond the lead, but as time permits I will add more.
 * Lead image It's a bit off-putting to be immediately faced by an image with a caption that clearly violates WP:CAP. My advice would be to increase the image size, and reduce the caption to the briefest description of the artefact. Let the text do the rest. I would also get rid of the faux "infobox", which gives nothing that isn't in the text immediately adjoining it, and merely gives readers an excuse not to read the article.
 * The caption has be discussed before. The reason it is so long is to resolve non-free image problems, apparently. Personally I agree with you and have attempted to edit it in the past only to have it reverted because of the license problem. I disagree with you, however, on the infobox. It provides such a minimal amount of information about sculpture that it hardly discourages readers from reading the article. --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "between 2004 to 2006" is ugly - "to" should be "and"
 * done. --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "sometimes jointly referred to as" would read better as "sometimes referred to jointly as..."
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed it (as mentioned below) was because quite honestly no one refers to Cloud Gate as "Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza" except the official Millennium Park site. I hardly think it is notable enough to put in the lead, let alone BOLD the title, as if it is as notable as "Cloud Gate" or "The Bean". The only reason you added this in the first place was when there we we having trouble with the AT&T Plaza article. I really think the article would be much better off without the sentence. Also, can you comment on the "most popular" remarks in the lead? There have been numerous complaints about it not having a suitable citation. --TorsodogTalk 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why boldface the (distinctly uncatchy) alternative name?
 * I removed this sentence altogether since it is essentially pointless. It is rarely referred to by this name and hardly deserves a mention in the lead, let alone a bolding of the name. --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an alternate name I have readded it with references from use by the City of Chicago, NASCAR and Air Canada.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Did you seriously just add ANOTHER bolded name? Neither of these names deserve bolding at all. Cloud Gate is the name of the sculpture. Period. Per the sculptor himself. The article is about Cloud Gate, not Cloud Gate AND the AT&T Plaza. These names should NOT be bolded. --TorsodogTalk 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to unbold if the community feels that is correct. The sentence belongs in the lead, IMO, but I am not sure about bolding.  I added the alternate joint name based on the results of usage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the article is simply about the sculpture now and not the sculpture and the plaza, I don't think bolding these names is appropriate anymore. In regards to keeping them in the article, I would be more inclined to do so if I could find a citation for the fact that the obvious reason they are sometimes jointly named is because of the AT&T sponsorship. I haven't been able to find a reliable source that talks about it yet, however. --TorsodogTalk 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The names are what they are. Causation is not so relevant, IMO.  The point is that it is common for the two subjects to be jointly described. I await third party commentary on the bolding, but kind of see your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bolding is not an issue settled by community consensus, its a MOS matter. The reason for bolding the alternative name is so that it stands out, i.e. is emphasised. WP:MOSBOLD is clear that bolding is inappropriate for this purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "...one of the most popular sculptures in the United States". This assertion is not borne out in the text, which merely says that it is extremely popular. The claim that it is one of the "most popular in the US" should be specifically cited.
 * This has also been brought up before. It is a sentence included by Tony, so hopefully he can shed more light on this citation problem? --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The second "and" in the second sentence of paragraph 2 conjoins unrelated clauses.
 * fixed. --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "ongoing" in the final paragraph is redundant.
 * gone. --TorsodogTalk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Article structure: I don't think the History section is adequately structured, with a long preamble and a single subsection. At the very least the preamble should become a subsection, headed (perhaps) "Background". You may wish to reallocate material between the subsections - some of the stuff in the preamble seems to relate to construction issues.

I will try and come back with more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Brion's concern. Has any effort been made to address this? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * About which concern, exactly? The one about the structure of the "History" section? If yes, then I haven't played with it yet. I can try to mess around with it tonight after work and see if I can resolve these issues. --TorsodogTalk 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

More comments Most of my concerns have been addressed, though I still see boldface in the lead. I find I am warming to the article, which engages my interest and is on the whole well presented. I do have some further concerns, however:- Well, I'm moving towards support, but I'd like some comments on the above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Further comment: I think, if you were interested in having my support, you'd have made more effort to answer my points of five days ago, even if you disagreed with my comments. It rather seems as though you've lost interest in your own article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prose issues: Some of the prose is a bit overblown and non-encyclopaedic. For example, "Gehry reveled in making a bridge that flaunts its seams". While the mental image of Gehry noisily celebrating while "making" a bridge is intriguing, "reveled" seems highly POV; neither it, nor the other colourful word "flaunts" occurs in the source. Also, wasn't he designing rather than making?
 * haha I agree. I changed the sentence to: "The two Gehry-designed structures, Jay Pritzker Pavilion and BP Pedestrian Bridge, display their seams prominently." I think this corrects the problems you had with the sentence. Let me know what you think. And I will address the next two more major problems later tonight when I have more time. Thanks again for your input! --TorsodogTalk 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arty stuff A bit too much of this for the ordinary reader, I suspect, in the "Artistic themes" section. Sample sentence: "Kapoor creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors and multiplies their image when they are positioned correctly". Eh? Sorry, I can't make any sense of this piece of art-crit. I think this section might generally benefit by the removal of some of the more obsure statements. And incidentally, knowing Tony's penchant for linking, why isn't omphalos linked?
 * Because nobody knows what it is?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" There's a couple of quite dull paragraphs dealing with the municipality's policies for granting photographic rights, and for the hiring out of its parks for corporate events, which are described as controversies. These bits of municipal bureaucracy may annoy some people but they are hardly controversies, nor closely related to the subject of the sculpture, nor very interesting. I recommend dropping both paras.
 * While you might find both paragraphs a bit boring, these events did happen and have had an impact on the sculpture. The photography portion especially. I trimmed the closure paragraph a bit and would be more open to cutting it completely, however, if people feel strongly about it. I do think that a small paragraph about a very popular public sculpture being closed to the public because of corporate events is worth mentioning though. --TorsodogTalk 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't that I have lost interest. It is that a lot of comments came in at once, and I haven't had time to sit down and really address them yet. I will attempt to finish addressing your suggestions tonight. --TorsodogTalk 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit throughout. Here's what I found in the lead, alone:
 * It is the centerpiece of the AT&T Plaza in Millennium Park within the Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois, and is located above Park Grill and adjacent to the Chase Promenade. - Why is Chicago not linked? Also, what does "above" mean? Is it literally higher in altitude than Park Grill?
 * I linked Chicago. Not sure why that wasn't linked. Also, it is located on the "roof" of the Park Grill. I use quotes though because the roof is a plaza and is on the same plane as the adjacent land. It is a bit hard to explain fully without being excessive, especially for the lead. Would you rather that little bit be removed and then introduced and explained fully in the History section? --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when I read that, I wasn't sure if "above" meant to the north of Park Grill, or on top of it. What about changing it to "located on top of Park Grill", or something similar? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I changed it to "oh top of". Hopefully that clears up any confusion. --TorsodogTalk 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sculpture was constructed between 2004 and 2006, with a temporary unveiling in the summer of 2004. - "With" is a poor connecting word.
 * Changed. --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cloud Gate is one of the most popular sculptures in the United States. - This isn't in the main article, so it needs to be cited. Seems very POV-ish to me.
 * Any word on this, Tony? --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, the public radio audio reference (#36) describes it as Wildly popular and among the greatest sculptures in the world.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded because "Cloud Gate" and popular does not result in many search results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Visitors are encouraged to walk around and under Cloud Gate's arch, which is 12 feet (3.7 m) high. - "Visitors are encouraged" sounds like a travel guide.
 * Changed to "able". --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sculpture was the result of a design competition. - What kind of competition? Another sentence in the lead to explain this would be great.
 * The article says " Millennium Park officials and a group of art collectors, curators and architects reviewed sculpture proposals from 30 different artists". I imagine they submitted proposed designs and were judged.  What else do you think is mandatory for inclusion in an FA quality article?  I don't recall seeing extensive descriptions of such competitions in other FA commissioned art work articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once chosen, its implementation caused numerous technological concerns regarding its construction and assembly, as well as concerns regarding its upkeep and maintenance. - "Promoted" would be a better word choice than "caused".
 * Changed. --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eventually, a feasible method was found, but the sculpture fell behind schedule and was unveiled in an incomplete form during the Millennium Park grand opening celebration before being concealed for completion. - Needs a comma or two.
 * Broke into two sentences. Thanks for some ce help. If you are up for it, I would greatly appreciate any ce you would be willing to do on the rest of the article! --TorsodogTalk 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to help with some copyediting when I get a chance. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More comments from the rest of the history section.
 * Instead, the piece was assembled on-site by MTH Industries. - Needs a source.
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These supporting structural components were designed and constructed to make sure no specific point was overloaded and to avoid producing unwanted indentations on the exterior shell. - "Make sure" &rarr; "assure". Also, add a comma after "overloaded".
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In June 2004, when construction of the shell began, a large tent was erected around the piece in order to shield it from public view. - Remove "in order".
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Construction first began with the omphalos, where plates were attached to the supporting internal steel structure. - Remove "first".
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sculpture was fully erected for the grand opening of Millennium Park on July 15, 2004, although it was unpolished and unfinished because its assembly had fallen behind schedule. - "Fully erected" &rarr; "completed".
 * Actually, I specifically used the term erected instead of complete because the sculpture was not actually complete. It still needed to be polished fully. It was, however, completely erected, as in all of the pieces were in place. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sculpture was finally completed on August 28, 2005, and dedicated on May 15, 2006. - Dedicated as what?
 * Hmmm, I'm not actually sure...? But I changed it to "officially unveiled" as stated in the source. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No public funds were involved, as all funding came from individual and corporate private donations. - "As" &rarr; "because".
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cloud Gate is wiped down twice a day by hand and is cleaned twice a year with 40 U.S. gallons (33 imp gal/150 L) of liquid detergent. - You might want to add that only the lower 6 ft are cleaned everyday.
 * Done. Thanks again! --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}}
 * More comments
 * The sculpture contributed to Millennium Park being named among the 10 best architectural achievements of 2004 in Time. - Poorly worded.
 * Reworded to "As one of Millennium Park's major attractions, Cloud Gate helped the park to be named one the ten best architectural achievements of 2004 by Time." Let me know what you think. --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sculpture is tremendously popular, - Already mentioned in the previous paragraph. No need to state its tremendous popularity more than once, or it sounds like an advert.
 * Gone. --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On May 24, 2005, the policy was changed so that permits were only required for "large-scale" film, video and photography requiring ten-man crews and equipment. - Remove "that".
 * Gone. --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Praise and controversy section could easily be named to Reception or Reaction or such.
 * I agree. "Reception" is a better title. --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the here–the beyond - Space the endash.
 * Done. --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is 27 feet (8.2 m) high and, as a part of the concave underside, it invites visitors to walk under and through its arch to the other side so that they view the entire structure. - The structure itself literally invites people to walk inside of it?
 * "Invites" changed to "allows" --TorsodogTalk 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing I noticed is the lack of dimensions info in the article itself. For example, the infobox and the lead say it's 33 feet high, but the main article contains nothing of the sort.
 * The reflections from the sculpture distort the entire skyline of the city. - Could you reword this better? To me, it implies that the reflection literally distorts the city's skyline.
 * For some reason I had problems rewriting this sentence, but I worked on it for a few minutes. I also messed with the sentence before it to make the entire thing flow a bit better, IMO. Take a look and let me know what you think. --TorsodogTalk 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now This article seems to be comprehensive, but I think that its prose and organization need to be improved.


 * I have changed the disputed caption to a quote from the sculptor that explains his intention. Hopefully this is better. However, I couldn't make the infobox accept a footnote. Does anyone know how to do this?


 * Prose, part 1 - The article needs a good copyeditor. There are odd diction choices and awkward phrases sprinkled throughout the article. Some careful work by an uninvolved copyeditor would easily bring the article up to snuff in this regard. Here are some examples (note, this is not an exhaustive list of the prose problems in the article):
 * The sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, although many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity. - The "although" doesn't make sense - why are these two ideas connected? Also, what themes? Include a brief description of the themes.
 * Although is chosen to describe the contrast between a point of view that the work is a sophisticated artwork with serious thematic concerns and the point of view that it is a tourist photo opportunity. There is a whole section in the article on artistic themes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once chosen, its implementation promoted numerous technological concerns regarding its construction and assembly, as well as concerns regarding its upkeep and maintenance. Various experts were consulted, some of whom believed the design could not be implemented.'' - "promoted" is incorrect; "implement" is repeated
 * rephrased. --TorsodogTalk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Performance Structures, Inc. (PSI) was chosen to fabricate the sculpture because of their ability to produce nearly invisible welds - "fabricate" has negative connotations, as in "made up"; I would suggest using a different word
 * "fabricate" is indeed the correct word. I linked it to fabrication (metal) to avoid confusion. --TorsodogTalk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These supporting structural components were designed and constructed to assure that no specific point was overloaded and to avoid producing unwanted indentations on the exterior shell. - "ensure" rather than "assure"
 * fixed. --TorsodogTalk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a result, the two large rings supporting the sculpture move independently of one another and the shell is allowed movement independent of the rings. - awkward phrasing
 * rephrased. --TorsodogTalk 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It has had tremendous drawing power, attracting locals, tourists and art aficionados alike. - "drawing power" is awkward
 * Why is "drawing power" awkward? It is a legitimate phrase used correctly. --TorsodogTalk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prose, part 2 - Like Brianboulton above, I am a bit worried about the overblown prose. Refining the claims made in these sentences will help explain just how popular the sculpture is:
 * Cloud Gate has become an icon of the city of Chicago - An icon? Really? When I think of icon, I think of the Empire State Building. I'm not sure Cloud Gate has reached that status.
 * I've re-structured a lot of this section. This sentence is changed. --TorsodogTalk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since its construction, Cloud Gate has become a tremendously popular piece of public art - What does "tremendously popular" mean? Can we quantify that in any way?
 * removed the word "tremendously" --TorsodogTalk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is one of the most photographed attractions in the city - By whom? Tourists? How do we know that?
 * Gone. --TorsodogTalk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSLINK - Obvious words such as "architect" and "skyscraper" are linked. Some terms, such as "Chicago", are linked too many times. Please search the entire article and remove the overlinking from the article.


 * The artist often questions and plays with such dualities as solidity–emptiness or reality–reflection, which in turn allude to such paired opposites as flesh–spirit, the here – the beyond, east–west, sky–earth, etc. that create the conflict between internal and external, superficial and subterranean, and conscious and unconscious - Please explain more clearly how the sculpture does this. Also, never use "etc"! We are here to explain the meanings of the sculpture to the reader - we can't expect the reader to know them already! :)


 * The paragraph on the omphalos in the "Artistic themes" section seems ill-placed in comparison to the rest of the material. It details sculpture specifications and reception. I would move this material to other parts of the article.
 * I split the paragraph in two and created a features section early in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Artistic themes" section could use a reorganization and a rewrite. I would suggest starting with the general information about Kapoor and then moving into the specifics about Cloud Gate. Also, the section repeats some ideas twice, for example, the notion of the disembodied viewer appears twice.
 * I reorganized it. Not quite sure about the disembodied viewer part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With some careful attention to the writing, this article can be dramatically improved. I look forward to supporting it at that time. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.