Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I. M. Pei/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 Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010.

I. M. Pei

 * Nominator(s): Scartol  •  Tok  22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have massively expanded, sources, decorated, revised, and reformatted this article over the past few months. Many thanks to for her careful prose-pruning, and to  for suggesting additional sources at the peer review. (Alas, I'm not able to access any of them at the moment.) Scartol  •  Tok  22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Fixed the two dab links. No dead external links. --an odd name 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops! I thought I fixed all them. Well, thanks, OddName! Scartol  •  Tok  22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Some more citation comments (2c, maybe 1c): There's a lot to take in, and from a glance the article looks good. --an odd name 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fill in refs 62 and 63. Those numbered links don't cut it.
 * Article prose (and one ref, 115) uses Month Day, Year dates, but other refs use Day Month Year. There's no problem using one format for prose and one for refs, but make sure you've figured out which. :)
 * "Retrieved", "Retrieved on", or "Accessed on"? Pick one.


 * Thanks for your attention to detail! This is what comes of leaving for a few weeks and missing things on my pre-FAC review. (Okay the "accessed on" was mine.) These are all fixed. Scartol  •  Tok  23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources
 * Why is the Balzac volume listed in the References? No citations to it, no mentions of it in the text, no obvious connection to I.M. Pei (but what do I know?)
 * No, this was my mistake. We used to have a quote from him to establish the status of the Louvre c. 1840, but when we took the quote out I forgot to remove the source. Scartol  •  Tok  00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 115: per MOS, The New York Times should be italicised
 * Per the same MOS, in refs 139, 140, 147 and 148 the publishers should not be italicised as they are not print sources.
 * Done and done. Thanks for this! Scartol  •  Tok  00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look good, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—please review this article for overlinking: in the first paragraph, there are links to architect and Bible. Ucucha 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I'm always very focused on avoiding overlinking, and I feel that the article in general steers clear of it. I removed the link around "architect" but I think Bible makes sense. (I think it makes sense to link specific written works.) Scartol  •  Tok  10:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think general rules like "link specific written works" aren't very useful; rather you should ask whether the reader is likely to be helped by having a link there. The article says Pei taught himself English by reading the Bible; do you think there will be many readers who cannot understand the meaning of the term "Bible" without a link? Ucucha 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really want to argue about it — since you feel strongly about it, I'll remove the link. I just don't consider it an example of overlinking. Shrug. Scartol  •  Tok  16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't in fact feel strongly about this, and if you prefer to have it linked, your choice. I just want you to know and understand my reasoning for preferring not to link articles like Bible in this context. Ucucha 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Well written, very well referenced. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Observations of ɳorɑfʈ  Talk!
 * Under Childhood, the line "she gave Pei the honor of preparing her pipe" seems odd. Is that irony? Irony has little place in an encyclopedia unless it is part of a quote. The fact should be reported neutrally (e.g. "she had Pei prepare her pipe" or "Pei was assigned the task of preparing her pipe") or if it really was an "honor," it should be explained why.
 * The source doesn't really explain why it was an honor (it just is, in the same way that for some kids in the US, carrying dad's hunting rifle is an honor), but I clarified it by writing: "preparing the pipe was something of an honor, which she gave to Pei". Scartol  •  Tok  11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm of the school that everything in the lead should be repeated in the article, which means that you shouldn't need a citation in the lead. WP:MOSLEAD. Cheers. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is repeated, but when something is potentially controversial or likely to be challenged ("often called..."), it's good to cite it. It should remain in the lead, since it's a defining characteristic of his stature among critics. And of course I've limited it to just the one citation. Scartol  •  Tok  11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give on this one, but I really don't think "honor" belongs in the other one without further explanation. If the source didn't explain it, then there is quite a bit of ambiguity. Was the source being ironic? If not, who considered it an honor? Both the mother and the son? Or just the son? I don't think we should transfer the source's ambiguity to the article, considering it is an encyclopedia article and thus needs to be as clear as possible. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 12:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not ironic. I don't think I can add any more information, so I'll let other folks weigh in. Thanks again for your feedback! Scartol  •  Tok  13:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Media - Can a direct link me made to the source of File:National_gallery_buildings.jpg on it's page? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to.. But I can't seem to find an original USGS page. The best I can do is at the bottom of this page. If I had to guess, I'd say it was extracted from this file, but it too is unlinked. Scartol  •  Tok  22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you cant prove the licence, you cant use the image (sorry) Fasach Nua (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how sad tho.. I replaced it with this one. Thanks for the feedback! Scartol  •  Tok  01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I've made a few minor fixes, with explanatory edit summaries. The length is a bit daunting, but I'm too rusty to have any immediate suggestions for how to tackle that. I would like to see consistent spacing in "I.M." vs "I. M.". Instances of "Louvre" need consistent styling. The 'world's tallest wooden building' image caption would perhaps benefit from an explanation that we are looking at temporary plywood replacement panels (at first glance, they simply looked like lit windows; I didn't figure it out till I saw the image title). Altogether this is very nicely done—an incredible improvement over the article I remember reading a couple years ago! Maralia (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've standardized the I. M. spacing and the Louvre italicization. Also changed the caption to indicate the wood panels. Thanks for your feedback! Scartol  •  Tok  10:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Pre- Support: left comments at the talk page. Issues about length of lead are foremost, but all in all, a very well-written article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking, full support. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead has been trimmed significantly. Thanks for your feedback! Scartol  •  Tok  01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: in the lede, "He was unhappy with the focus on Beaux-Arts architecture," sounds like it's talking about his time at MIT, when it's about Penn. Maybe this could be clarified. I'm super-busy at the moment, but if you want another review, drop me a message at my talk and I'll do it. He actually designed my old department's building, so I think I'd have a good time with it. Awickert (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Beaux-Arts dominated both schools at the time, so I clarified by changing it to: "He was unhappy with the focus at both schools on Beaux-Arts architecture...". Thanks for your keen eyes! Scartol  •  Tok  00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, thanks. Now I've read far enough to see that. MIT's program is so modern these days that I just didn't think... Awickert (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criterion 3 Sorry to have to do this!


 * File:Shanghai 1928 Bund Cenotaph.jpeg - All images hosted at Commons have to be PD in the US and in the country of origin. The information for this image explains why it is PD in China, but not in the US. Please add the requisite info for the US.
 * Replaced with this picture. Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * New pic is good to go. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Bing Crosby in Road to Singapore trailer.jpg - This image description page needs to link to the Road to Singapore trailer to demonstrate that the trailer had no copyright notice (try youtube for the trailer).
 * Replaced with this image. Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PD because it was taken by FDR while president. Wow. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Walter Gropius Foto 1920.jpg - The source link for this photo does not indicate that the image was taken by Louis Held. Could we get a reference for that?
 * This book on Bauhaus lists many illustration credits for Held, and obviously Gropius factors large in the book's subject matter. I know it's not an actual citation, but it does indicate pretty fairly that it's probably a proper attribution. But if it's a dealbreaker, I'll just remove the photo. Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and replaced it with this image of Frank Lloyd Wright. Scartol  •  Tok  22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * New image checks out - I fixed the license. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:路思義教堂.jpg - Please add an English translation to the image description page. Also, what assurance do we have that the uploader is the author (and therefore can release the rights)? I looked at the source and it is a blog - is the uploader the author of the blog? Does the blog say s/he took the photo?
 * English description added. The blog author appears to be a professional wedding photographer, so it's safe to assume s/he took the photo. I'd be happy to replace it with this image, but I worry that the PD release isn't completely track-down-able. Thoughts? Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok with original image. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:National Center for Atmospheric Research - Boulder, Colorado.jpg - The uploader and the author are not the same user. Since it is the uploader who chooses the permissions, we have to make sure they have the right to release the photo. Please ask the author to verify that they are the uploader or to write a signed statement on the image description page, endorsing the permissions.
 * I've left a note on 's talk page. Is this signed statement you speak of something that would have to travel through the mail? Or can it be done electronically? Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * has confirmed authorship. My guess is that the Commons uploader (Oxhop) merely moved it from Wikipedia. I've asked Daderot to verify authorship on the Commons page. Scartol  •  Tok  15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just have them sign the summary or talk page. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Palmcourt.jpg - Please ask the uploader to verify that they are the author and to write a signed statement on the image description page, endorsing the permissions.
 * The previous item says "verify ... or write a signed statement". Are these either-or, or both required? As for the Palmcourt photo, the uploader is, who hasn't contributed since 2007. However, the description indicates it was taken by Nathaniel Burbank (same initials) and the user lists himself as a graduate of New College (which the photo depicts). Can this be seen as adequate verification? Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I replaced it with this image, taken by a friend of mine. (OTRS confirmation is on the way.) Scartol  •  Tok  22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Awaiting OTRS confirmation. (Sorry, we do actually need the author to write a signed statement on the image page somewhere and unfortunately, while the evidence you list for Nsb3000 is good, it is only circumstantial. I saw it myself and groaned, knowing it wasn't enough. Think like a lawyer!) Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Once these issues are addressed, I will be happy to strike the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize! I appreciate your attention to detail. (working furiously) Scartol  •  Tok  23:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack !! I darn near missed this.  Please ping me when all is resolved.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for being so meticulous.. I suppose I assumed that you had checked these when you did the slash-and-burn copyedit, but I guess not. Cheers! Scartol  •  Tok  23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Awadewit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I emailed her a couple of days ago. I'm ready to make more changes if needed. Scartol  •  Tok  15:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond - personal issues. Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose (2 image issues) : I had printed and read this fine articles offline in bits and pieces in my spare time for the past few days. I would throw in my support after the following two issues are resolved.
 * File:Louvre Pyramid PCFP.jpg: The fair use rationale is weak (simply "illustrating a best known work"); I feel better rationales are those that explicitly detail why such an image is irreplaceable with words. That said, a picture of the pyramid alone is a contravention of French law, but a picture of the pyramid as a relatively non-descript part of the scenary is not.  The statement in text, "Pei also found the pyramid shape best suited for stable transparency, and considered it 'most compatible with the architecture of the Louvre, especially with the faceted planes of its roofs'", can be illustrated with File:Paris 047..jpg or File:FW Louvre2.jpg (although take note that using one of these images would need a change of the caption since the use of the photo is not to draw attention to the pyramid itself but as an illustration of the Louvre plaza setting with the pyramid; by French law, such a photo is not to show a focus on the copyrighted structure).  In short, I would suggest dumping the non-free image, use a panoramic shot of the plaza accompanied by a caption that highlights the Pyramid's integration with its environment.
 * Done and done. Replaced with this image and fixed caption. Scartol  •  Tok  11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the caption further; please take a look and tweak to your preference. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * File:DohaMOIA.jpg: As far as I can tell from Qatari copyright law, structures are copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama; hence this photograph infringes on Pei's copyright.
 * Removed. Scartol  •  Tok  11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, I thought there was some template to inform readers that Pei (貝) is his last (family) name. As it is, "Ieoh Ming Pei (貝聿銘)" might confuse those non-literate in Chinese on the correspondence of the Chinese characters to English words.  I have read through Manual of Style (use of Chinese language), but it gives no help on this (it is more for Chinese figures commonly known by the "family name-personal name" standard).  I think this might have to be clarified in text or with a foot note.  Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had found this in one of the sources I consulted, I'd be happy to add a note about it. On the web, the closest I can find is this. I can say that I left in all of the Chinese characters and templates and explanations that had been there when I began the reconstruction process.
 * Thanks for your feedback! Scartol  •  Tok  11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems. For the correlation between 貝 and Pei as family names, one can compare the English and Chinese versions of Gero von Boehm's Conversations with I. M. Pei: Light is the Key.  In chapter 1&mdash;Family&mdash;Pei's comments of "our/my family" corresponds to "貝家/貝氏家族" (Pei family/clan).  I do not think there is really a need to source the transliteration of his name though (i.e. such a thing is non-controversial: none of his characters are with rare, out-of-the-norm transliterations).


 * I found something in Naming conventions (Chinese), where it points out to look as an example in Wen Ho Lee (using the template inline in parantheses after the English name).  I see I. M. Pei is also using the  Infobox supplement...  I think we should either use the inline mention and dump  (good grief, even Bruce Lee does not have that mess of indiscriminate transliterations and glyphs), or dump the Chinese inline name and have  for those interested in the Chinese characters of his name.  Personally I was bold and went for the first idea, which I feel is a neater result and is mentioned in the MOS.  I am more comfortable to support this comprehensive article on a renowned architect for featured status.  Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.