Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4


 * 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 21:07, 27 September 2009.

Crown Fountain

 * Nominator(s):, 

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, 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 and  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 :
 * 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.  Un  sch  ool
 * 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. Un  sch  ool
 * 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.  Un  sch  ool  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. Un sch  ool  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?  Un  sch  ool  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)
 * Would it be possible to get a higher resolution picture in place of the one at the top of the article? I clicked on it and was disappointed that I couldn't fill my monitor with a close up image.  Does that matter in FA, or is it only about the writing?  Un  sch  ool  01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer File:20080410 Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg as the main image?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't seem any higher resolution that the one now on there. Un  sch  ool


 * Also the following are available on flickr.com under appropriate licenses:
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildcat_dunny/32174448/
 * This one is pretty good, probably gives the best image of the glass brick towers themselves. Un  sch  ool


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergemelki/2713868085/
 * I really like the crowds around the fountain in this one; the only thing that keeps this from being my only choice is the (really picky point here) fact that the fountain isn't lined up so well with the lips. Un  sch  ool


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/trippinlarry/3012461162/
 * No way. Un  sch  ool


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/albany_tim/2826716306/
 * This one is pretty good, too.  Un  sch  ool
 * I'd be okay with any of the three of which I spoke positively: wildcat dunny, sergemelki, or albany tim.   Un  sch  ool  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. -- T orsodo g Talk 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I've got a lot to learn about that stuff. Thanks for trying.  Un  sch  ool  04:31, 8 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)
 * Oppose per criterion three: Comment: no criterion 3 concerns. Эlcobbola  talk 13:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, and  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)
 * 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 . 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 Help_desk.--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. -- T orsodo g Talk 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Torsodog, Should I be watching your editor contributions to see when you have done this or will it be on commons or somewhere else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * elcobbola, I am wondering if chopping a single spouting clip isn't like being restricted to half an image. Is it possible that the artistic element is considered to be the full video? Might it damage the artistic integrity of the video to clip it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. NFCC#3B: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice."  Эlcobbola  talk 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is up with, but the help desk gave me a website with instructions. I would much rather someone who knows what they are doing do it. If worse comes to worse, I will try to do it myself on Friday or Saturday, but I hope he can do this before then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just asked, and  if they know how to edit .ogg files.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * has informed me that there are multiple .ogg filetypes and we need video specialist. He recommended that I contact  and .  I have and await further response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * has said he would take care of this over the weekend. If he does not, I will try to do so Monday (UTC).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and have failed to deliver.  I am communicating with .  Not sure if he will be able to help or if I will have to try to figure it out myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can not get the video clipped, we can revert to images I suppose. Would you have a problem with the three images used previously to depict what the video currently depicts.  I could reupload them if we do not get this clipped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that you yourself have clipped the video and replaced it in the article 20 minutes ago, I presume at any moment you will strike your oppose, since all issues seem resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you struck your comment as I was noting that you hadn't. Thanks for the assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:57, 20 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  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)


 * "Opposing towers that are 50 ft 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)


 * Comment when is a FAC eligible to be included at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a beautifully done article. I enjoyed reading it, found it informative and interesting. I had a few comments on the section on video photography, mainly related to prose. It was the only part that I found confusing. I've included my suggestions in bold.


 * About Approximately 75 ethnic, social, and religious Chicago organizations were asked to provide candidates whose faces would be to be photographed for integration into the fountain.'[29] The subjects for the faces were chosen from local schools, churches and community groups, and filming began in 2001 at the downtown campus of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). The SAIC students filmed their subjects with a $100,000 high-definition HDW-F900 video camera, the same model as those used in the production of the three Star Wars prequels.[18][30] About 20 SAIC students took part in what became an informal master's level course in public art for the project.[29] ...


 * Each face appears on the sculpture for a total of 5 minutes using various parts of 80-second videos.[18](???) A 40-second section is played at one-third speed forward and backward, running for a total of 4 minutes.[10] Then, there is a subsequent 15 second segment where in which the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a 30 second section in which the water appears to spout from the open mouth 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 15 second smile. after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.[18] Of the original 1,051 subjects filmed, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.[10] Originally, the set of images was presumed to be the beginning of a work in progress, but now no additional videos are planned.[29 ]

In the 2nd paragraph, I don't understand the first sentence. I've suggested some other tweaks to help the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence means that the SAIC students shot each subject for 80 seconds. These 80 seconds are used to produce five minutes of video as the remainder of the paragraph details.  I am not exactly sure where you are confused and where I have been unclear.  I think we have the first paragraph down.  Please reconsider the second paragraph given this explanation.  I had trouble with the prior instructions because your wishes for the 2nd paragraph were not as clear as the first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, I added some commas and a couple of words to help the clarity. See if that works for you.  Plus changed "now" to as of 2009.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one revision to clarify that the last segment is also extended. Everything else is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, nice work!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A non-free video is really not a good thing. I advise replacing it with a single image in the infobox. I strongly oppose promotion while the video remains. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The image reviewer just approved this by clipping this down from 50 seconds to what he/she determined to be an acceptable amount of non-free content. The understanding of this article is somewhat dependent on this two second video clip.  Note that this has replaced four images (a main image and a sequence of three images) that were in the article at FAC3.  Is it possible that you could talk to the very conservative image reviewer  and come to an agreement on some sort of compromise.  I am willing to put an image as the main image and move the video down to the body of the article, but am not sure what is best since the image reviewer opposed the redundancy of the image and the video and asked us to remove the image.  In short your opposition is asking us to undo what has  been done by and for the image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to remove the non-free video. This is a horrible slippery slope that we don't want to get ourselves involved with. Why is a single image not acceptable? A single frame from that video surely illustrates the work of art in a satisfactory way? Why do we need a video at all? J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The video replaces a sequence of exemplifying detail shown in the Crown_Fountain and Crown_Fountain sections so that the reader could see the face, the puckering and the spouting. I am not an expert on image policy.  Could you talk to .  I will do whatever the two of you agree to as a solution since I would revert to the sequence of non-free images. This is a rare video sculpture and  thought a short video clip would help the reader. I guess the thinking was that a video of a video sculpture might be a rare exception for non-free video content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Elcobbola seems to concede on his own talk page that your request is reasonable. I have reverted to the still image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that lead image would have to be considered a derivative work, and therefore non-free. There is no freedom of panorama for works of art of this sort in the United States. A quick look at the other images makes me think that they are not derivative works, but further review of the "other fountains" may be needed. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. so you still have the strong oppose stated and no clear directive. I await your further comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are deliberating on the inclusion of the other fountains. You may remove them if you feel that is necessary and then hopefully you can strike your oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that I "strongly oppose promotion while the video remains", and the video has now been removed. So no, I no longer strongly oppose. I will take a deeper look at the images now. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG needs fixing up- it cannot be both freely licensed and non-free. In this case, it seems it is non-free, although details about the author of the photo itself is, naturally, useful. File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg has an in-image caption that needs to be cropped. I am a little concerned about the copyright of the other fountains, but I don't want to look into that right now. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cropped and replaced File:20080728 Crown Fountain at night (flank view) of south tower.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct any misunderstanding that I have about licensing, but wrt File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG, I believe that there are two licenses. The photographer may freely release his photographic copyright of a non-free image giving rise to both a free and a non-free license.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for Wikipedia's purposes, this image is non-free. Mention that you are the photographer and that you release the image under (whatever), but the only tag on the image page should be the non-free one. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been through this debate on many modern sculptures with many image reviewers and have been told by many people that I must release my photographic copyright. I have reworded and rearranged significantly.  Is this change palatable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Quite simply, this image is non-free. Yes, mention in the sourcing that you took the image and you are releasing it under whatever, but the free license templates should not be there. No image should be tagged as both free and non-free. They are mutually exclusive. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I consider this issue resolved. I don't have time to give a full review right now, but I no longer oppose in any way. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch) In the interest of full disclosure, I made the map and have made some edits here (mostly during a previous FAC, plus some now). My previous concern at FAC was with the number of non-free images and that has clearly been addressed here. I have a few questions / quibbles (that do not detract from my support): I have to go now, may have a few more quibbles, but this is much improved and worthy of FA status. Well done! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence After several dozen glass manufacuturing firms were interviewed, L. E. Smith Glass Company emerged as the company to produce 22,500 glass blocks near the upward bound for the size of press glass formed from hand poured molten glass and cast iron molds.[36] would "upper limit" or perhaps "upper boundary" make more sense than "upward bound"? Also shouldn't it be "hand-poured" (with a hyphen)?
 * Upper limit it is. Hyphen added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Confusing - I think the second "and" should be "or" and a word seems to be missing The individual grids are 5 feet (1.5 m) tall and either 16 feet (4.9 m) and [or?] 23 feet (7.0 m) [wide? - missing word] with cell capacity of an average of 250 blocks.[38]
 * Yes either goes along with or. I presume the missing word is wide.  I do not have the source with me.  I will put in wide for now.  Next time I am at my local library, I will check.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparent contradiction: In the Selection of artist section it reads The installation is a video sculpture, commissioned to operate thirty years.[21] but in the Construction and engineering section it says The electronics were designed to be adaptable to the time of day, weather and season and to meet the desired century-long longevity and dependability objectives.[3] Which is it (30 years or 100)?
 * These are actually complimentary and not contradictory. As I understand it the commission means that Plensa was chosen to design something that would last 30 years.  Plensa and the designers then set a 100 year design objective and the electronics were designed to meet that specification.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - could this be made clearer in the article then? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, all my questions have been answered, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have both English and metric units The water in the reflecting pool has a depth of about 1/3 of a centimeter.[55]
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this Traditional fountains such as these other Chicago fountains discourage viewer touching;...  be clearer as something like These other Chicago fountains are traditional in that they discourage viewer touching;...?
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am done with quibbles and have made a few more copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is almost there, but some deficiencies remain, and these need to be removed. There seems to be too much Wikilinking, too much jargon, and too many peacock terms than befits a featured article. I think this can be fixed in short order, a day or two max. Here are some examples:
 * Oppose for now Support:


 * (Sentence 1 lead): "''Crown Fountain is an interactive work of public art and video sculpture featured in Chicago's Millennium Park, which is located in the Loop community area."
 * If I, as someone who knows Chicago well, can't make sense of this, how, do you think, a reader unfamiliar with the city is going to fare? You need to keep it simple, something along the lines of, "Crown Fountain is a fountain in Chicago which features an interactive video sculpture; it is located in the new Millennium Park&mdash;the northwest corner of Grant Park&mdash;between Lake Michigan and the Loop.  (We don't need to know about "community areas," "public art" and the like.)
 * I am not sure that this article should be formatted differently than the two recent prior WP:FAs in Millennium Park (BP Pedestrian Bridge and Cloud Gate), and all of my other Chicago FAs, such as Fountain of Time, Chicago Board of Trade Building, Prairie Avenue, and South Side (Chicago), which all refer to community areas. Click on the Loop, Chicago article and see if it might help the reader understand where this is located.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think as a Chicagoan, you may be too close to the term Loop and not understand how helpful the community area link is for the international reader who does not know what the Loop is. This link is commonly accepted in almost all if not all my Chicago GAs as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, an earlier FAC, GAC, PR or talk page discussion shot down an intro starting with "Crown Fountain is a fountain" due to repetition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The fountain has a prominent location in Chicago and the new park: east of Michigan Avenue and across from the Chicago Landmark Historic Michigan Boulevard District; north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute of Chicago; west of the rest of the park and the lake; and south of Madison Street and the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink."
 * Again, too complicated and peacocky. All you need to say is, "The fountain is centrally located in Chicago: it is east of Michigan Avenue, north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute of Chicago; and south of Madison Street.  (You've already told us how it sits in relation to Grant Park.  I don't think an average reader cares about McCormick Tribune Plaza etc.) Please also remove all references to Chicago Landmarks and Historic This or That.  The City slaps a landmark sign on anything that is more than 50 years old and doesn't move.
 * I have incorporated this suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Looking north from the fountain, viewers see some of the tallest buildings in the United States (Aon Center, Two Prudential Plaza, and One Prudential Plaza)."
 * Come on now. Really?  The Prudential Center?  It is barely one of the tallest buildings in Chicago.  You make the article read like a bad City of Chicago tourist brochure.  :)
 * Please see Tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States. All three are in the top 30.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You get the idea. Please simplify, remove excessive Wikilinks, jargon, and peacocky terms. I will then be delighted to support the article. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to repeat "fountain," that is fine, but you do need to give some sense in the lead sentence that water is an essential feature of this interactivity. As for the Loop, I doubt if a new reader is going to gain much essential knowledge by being distracted in the very first sentence and sent off on a wild goose chase for the "Loop" in the Community areas of Chicago page.   The Chicago Loop page is enough; it has a map which shows where it sits in relation to the city.  The reader doesn't need to be saddled with additional info that the Loop is community area number 32 etc. etc. or even that Chicago has "community areas."   Perhaps, something along the lines of, "'Crown Fountain in Chicago is a work of public art that combines interactive aquatic play  and video sculpture.  The park is located in the city's new Millennium Park, between Lake Michigan and the Loop central business district.'"


 * In any case, since your article is almost there, and since I'm strapped for time, I'm changing my vote to a support. Although I am not entirely happy with the lead and the first subsection after that, I have to say the rest of the article is very well written and packed with a lot of details.  Congrats!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.