Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exelon Pavilions/archive1


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 03:30, 25 September 2010.

Exelon Pavilions

 * Nominator(s): and  

I am nominating this for featured article because WP:FT changed the FT requirement to having at least 50% featured content effective on September 1. Although Millennium Park has not yet been officially demoted, it is now one featured article short of the requirement and will be demoted any day now. If this article gets promoted, it will enable the topic to regain its FT status. Over the last week has copyedited this article very extensively and also responded to a peer review by  and. At this point the article is more his work than mine in a sense although the majority of the content is probably from my work. I believe that after all his efforts this is one of WPs finest articles. He and I will respond to any concerns posted here.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it is a joint effort Tony. My thanks to you and to the peer reviewers, who really helped polish the article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: In general sources look OK. I was slightly concerned with 21 citations to an Exelon press release, but many of these are double refs and anyway are mostly for routine factual information. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ucucha and Brianboulton - I can remove the Exelon press release from the double refs if desired (just use it where it is the only source for things like number of solar power modules and power output). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This was also raised in the PR, so I reduced it to 12 refs in the article, mostly by removing it from double refs and a few places where two sentences in a row had the same ref. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The only thing I have seen is the sources in the lede. It is my understanding, that if the information is sourced in the main text body, it is not necessary to source them in the lede as the lede is supposed to a "short version" of the article you are about to read.  That is what I was told on my FAC.  If this is correct, I recommend removing the sources from the lede as they seem to be in the text body.  Otherwise, I see nothing needing corrections since the last I looked during my PR. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Historically, there have been two styles of WP:LEAD. There have been fully cited and fully uncited styles.  In one style you cite factual claims in the LEAD in need of inline citations. In the other you wait until the first instance of the fact being in the main body and the LEAD summarizes facts that are cited elsewhere in the main body.  Historically, either style has been acceptable at FAC.  Articles which are half way in between and cite a few things have been told to pick one style or the other but not be half way in between.  I am not sure about your specific case, but I have generally summarized historical convention.  Things change and it may be the case that in the future or even already only one style is permitted at FAC.  I am not aware of a current convention as such at this time.  I believe many of the other 8 FAs in the topic use the cited LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I wasn't aware of the two styles. So please disregard my post above and I now voice my Support for this FAC. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and for your contributions during this week's PR that helped raise the quality of this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your peer review comments and support. I note that even when the "no refs" lead syle is used, WP:LEADCITE still requires refs for quotations, material likely to be challenged (usually extraordinary claims), and contentious WP:BLP material. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I peer reviewed this article and my comments were all addressed at that time. Very nicely done. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also than you for your peer review participation and support here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My thanks too, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – References 23 and 27 are PDF links, which should be noted in the citations. Seems pretty solid otherwise.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I have added format=PDF to both, thanks. Do the external links (which are PDFs too) need to be noted as PDFs? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I looked this one over, it meets the criteria. I have a number of small quibbles which I will put on article talk page in due course, of which the largest is it isn't made clear to the reader that if Grant Park was to remain free of buildings, how it was that it acquired buildings, perhaps the nominator could look over the background section with an eye to those not intimately familiar with Chicago history, beyond, of course, the minimal success of its baseball teams.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support. I am looking forward to the quibbles and we will do our best to address any issues you raise. The ban on buildings / height restrictions on structures in Grant Park are referred to in various sources, but we have been unable to find an explicit height limit (this also came up in the Harris Theater FAC). I know Tony has contacted the Chicago Public library about this, but all the materials they found did not include an actaul height limit. This is original research on my part, but my impression on how these escaped is two-fold. 1) Since Millennium Park was new (reclaimed) parkland that had been rail yards and parking, people tended to focus more on the ~25 acre of new park, and less on the new buildings added within Grant Park. 2) While buildings seem to be allowed as long as they are small and/or below a certain height, the real focus seems to be whether or not there has been a lawsuit seeking to remove them under the Montgomery Ward restrictions; we found no such suit(s) for Millennium Park, but there has been a legal fight since over building a new Children's Museum in another section of Grant Park. Finally I note that all of Millennium Park is on top of an underground parking structure, and it contains a restaurant (underground), theater (mostly underground), pavilion and fountain (both classified as art), large sculpture, small bike station (mostly underground), peristyle, and two pedestrian bidges, in addition to these pavilions. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * has found two useful sources: one on the height restrictions and one on Ward's lawsuits and subsequent legal cases involving Grant Park and structures in it (these are on the article's talk page). I had hoped to add the new material to the article tonight, but need some more time to mull over what I have read and think how best to do this. I will also add it to several other of the Millennium Park articles where it applies. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added more to the article on the explicit height limit (40 feet), along with two refs. I added that Ward did not oppose the Art Institute in Grant Park in a ref to the website summarizing the various legal cases surrounding the park. Once it is clear that what I have added here is OK, I will add it to some of the other MP articles. Thanks again to Nasty Housecat. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: Clear, well-written and informative. I have a couple of questions about two of the images:-
 * File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg: Despite the guidance given in the caption, I was not able to spot the locations of the pavilions from this image. Perhaps the caption could be more helpfully written?
 * File:South Pavilions, Lurie Garden, New AIC Wing.jpg. Can you clarify what structures are depicted here. Which are the South Pavilions? Again, this is chiefly a question of the caption.

Otherwise, well done to both of you. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, sources review, and support. I will work on making the captions clearer for both images, though it may take me several hours. One of the problems is that the south pavilions are fairly small and so in an image showing all four pavilions, or even just those two, they are not very prominent given the scale required. In the first image, the north pavilions are at the extreme bottom edge, and are unfortunately partly cut off, making identifying them even trickier. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, please obtain an image policy review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked . SInce this has 4 supports and no opposes, I hope the image review is the last hurdle and can be done soon. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to also ping Jappalang and Stifle. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I do that bad of a job? Эlcobbola  talk 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no criterion three concerns. Эlcobbola  talk 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. You do a wonderful job, as do the others Sandy named. I knew Jappalang had a busy template on his talk page, so I asked you. Thank you again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate the quick image review and thank my co-author for pushing this forward, while I try to balance RL, the WP:CUP and normal WP responsibilities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Notes: Pls run through one more time. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is all of that bolding necessary in the lead?
 * Thanks. I agree it is a lot of bold text. My understanding is that all of the alternate names should be bolded in the lead. Since this is about four buildings, which were designed, built, and reviewed in two groups, there are seven names (4 pavilions, 2 groups, and overall) in bold. I defer to your judgment, if you say the bold should go, I will take the bold out except for the first sentence in the lead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your choice, but I say when a guideline results in UGLY, we might consider whether to ignore it :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am OK with removing the bold from all but the lead sentence, but would like to hear what Tony has to say before doing so. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some WP:OVERLINKing (much better than in previous noms, but still a problem).
 * Overuse of "also", pls check throughout.
 * I found also used 8 times, removed 6, converted the statement that Beeby was the architect for the Harris Theater and the North Pavilions to "as well", and left the fact the two of the pavilions have the exact same number of solar power modules as also. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Inline left about WP:MOSDATE, pls review.
 * Thanks for catching this, I changed "new" describing the Art Institute's Modern Wing to 2009, the year it was built. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Puffery, shouldn't the "Pulitzer" part be in his link, not here? "Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin ... "
 * Thanks, since about 2/3 of the Reception and recognition section is based on Kamin's review, and he is the only critic quoted (and did the only architecture review of the pavilions we could find), we wanted to make sure readers knew his qualifications. My experience is that people outside the US or North America are not very familiar with such awards (just as I would not have known what the Ballon d'Or was without its link), so I would rather have it linked here than two clicks away in Kamin's article. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable: promoted since I can count on you to resolve remaining niggles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Editorialzing POV: "On a more positive note ... "
 * The intent was to contrast his negative criticism with the points he did praise, but I have removed the phrase. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to remove overlinking, but am a bit blind to it at this point. Also am still working on captions for Brian. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats Guys! :) Well done! :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.