Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rush Street (Chicago)/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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008.

Rush Street (Chicago)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article has improved since becoming a GA and it is an interesting subject for many projects.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Only question is about emporis.com, and it's reliablity. Otherwise sources look good. Being still on the road, I didn't check sources links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I swapped it out for the Chicago Tribune.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Image in the infobox looks weird as a thumbnail. Also, is there a more recent (like, this century) photo?
 * Do you have a preference of the images in the article for the main image. The best image in my opinion are the Trump images, but it would be inappropriate to choose any of them because in truth it will be associated with Rush Street like The Plaza Hotel is associated with Fifth Avenue or the Park Hyatt is associated with the Magnificent Mile.  I the the best image might be Dr. Rush, but it is also old.  The Gibson photo lighting is not so hot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WRT, thumbnail, is your problem with the caption, borders or both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the thumbnail itself; they aren't used in infoboxes generally (instead, the infobox has a caption field, or it should). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with captioning options in Infobox road since the image is really suppose to be for a road marker or a shield, which speaks for itself without a caption. The template may not have a caption argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added a half dozen Library of Congress images. Let me know if you think any of them is a better main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the image below the Street name and eliminated the caption parameter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't summarise very well...there's barely any mention of commerce and of the bridge....
 * I added more commerce information and specifically named the bridge--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "as home to many great caberets, bars, clubs and restaurants." - NPOV?
 * It is sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In refs, publisher is wlinked sometimes (eg. ref 21) but sometimes left un-linked (eg. ref 12)...be consistent. Other than that, refs look fine. Images are all OK too. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standard with a mix of print edition books and internet references. You do not wikilink print edition books.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just linkeed the publisher in the separate references section. The will remain omitted in the footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. All my concerns seem addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The pictures are pushing the text around - the layout doesn't look right.
 * I scoured the Library of Congress and the National Archives today to look for a new main image and found a half a dozen new images to add to the article. You are probably going too be further displeased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I am talking about the other images - they are pushing the text around and ruining the format, because there's too many of them. For example, WP:MOS says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." - but you have images obscuring section headings. — Wackymacs  ( talk  ~  edits ) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with dihydrogen monoxide - The image in the infobox should not be a thumbnail. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I said above I am using infobox road which does not have caption capabilities, to the best of my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the image below the Street name and eliminated the caption parameter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox road template isn't designed to take a photo, just a route marker/shield and a map. Until I created a SVG version of the wooden signage used by Keweenaw County, Brockway Mountain Drive had no graphic image above the roadway name in the infobox. All photos of the roadway are in the article, like most/all of the WP:USRD articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My main image is similar to that of Pulaski Skyway.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pulaski Skyway uses a bridge infobox. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Way, way, way too many images crowding the text. Reconsider whether some of them are necessary. Does Dr. Rush, who has his own article, really need an image in here? Also, does the picture of the mayor on the sidewalk truly add any information about the street, other than the mayor sometimes enjoyed walking down this street? Also, many of the images are pictures of/inside the buildings along the street, not actually of the street. Very few of the images give an idea of what it would look like if you were to take a drive down Rush Street. Consider moving some of the images to a Commons gallery to reduce clutter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the images have been rearranged to be more tolerable and less cluttered, there are still too many, and more have been added with even less relevance. (A pizza?) There are still no photos that give a clear ground view of what Rush Street would look like to someone actually using the street, and there are no photos clearly showing how Rush Street is typically signed. So, with these deficiencies, I must oppose. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the weather is decent on Wednesday, I will take some photos. In terms of signage right now the best we have is Image:20070729 Rush Street Sign.jpg. If I don't get anything better on Wed, I will use that. I will replace the pizza picture with the pizzeria.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (upgrade from oppose). The images have at least been put into boxes that make the article less cluttered, which is better, but I would still prefer that only the 9-10 most expressive images be included in the article itself and the remainder be displayed in a linked Commons gallery (use the  param of infobox road to produce a box at the bottom of it, or use commons for an independent box). However, the present setup is at least tolerable. You do have a map now, though, and I'd prefer seeing the infobox's   parameter put to good use displaying the map in its rightful place in the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A map? Where?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I see. How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have thought about your neutral. It sounds like the following.  You would like me to go from 30 images that help the reader to 10 images that help the reader.  Previous to the boxing cluttered images was the complaint, but that is not the issue now.  Also squeezing is not an issue.  Thus, it sounds like you are requesting that I remove 20 images that cause no problems and help the reader as a matter of personal preference.  Please reconsider WP:WIAFA.  Keep in mind that multiple image is a new template so it will seem different from what you have seen before.  I think in the future more images will be common in articles.  You should analyze whether there are any remaining problems with the images given the new boxed format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard it said somewhere that "we are not Encarta", perhaps implying that too many images may outweigh the text and make things seem too "breezy" and not "encyclopedic" (whatever those things mean). I think the MoS speaks to the number of images that make good sense, but as you say, that was written before these new templates... I won't oppose, I plan to eventually support whether this is changed or not but I absolutely see where others are coming from. And I'm the guy who tends to chafe against removing images. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unclear what eventually support means. Are there things I can do other than remove images that I feel help the reader to get you to support.  Clearly, this could be failed any day that I continue not to make progress on building consensus to promote.  Galleries in the text are not good, but this is sort of a sidebar technique that I think is stil encyclopedic.  If it does not pass here. I hope to be able to try again with Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). The ratio on that one is a little better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about having so many images is that they compete with the prose for the reader's attention. When you have a lesser number of images, the reader can easily look at the image and read the relevant paragraph. With such a large number of images, is the reader supposed to look at them first, then read the prose, or the other way around? Which images illustrate which paragraphs? Is the reader still supposed to consider the images to support the text, or is the text supporting the images? Splitting the reader's attention between text and images detracts from the helpfulness of otherwise illustrative images, as they don't know what to look at in what order—there's too much eye candy! And the worst thing you can do is make readers look at the text, look at the images, look at the text, look at the images—they're liable to lose their train of thought and their place in the article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking the most expressive images and putting the rest in a Commons gallery—look at how Kansas Turnpike does it, and follow that example. There, the reader can see the most important images and if he wants more, he can just click over to the Commons gallery and there's more images to give him a more in-depth understanding of the topic. Which is the way it should be, and why we have cleanup-gallery and other things discouraging masses of images in articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You present a cogent argument, which has no doubt been used several times to explain why galleries are undesirable. The reader has to page down to the images and page back up to the text.  However, when all the images are in the relevant section and likely on the screen at the same time as the text the dynamics are different.  Whereas a standard gallery at the end of the article causes undue distraction as the reader attemtps to back and forth from the text to the gallery.  These images are on the side in sections.  I did not split the images for the first two sections into two separate side galleries, but the other two main sections have their own images.  It is much more likely that each image is additive when it is in the same section as the text or on the screen at the same time.  With the wide array in screen resolutions, it is impossible to make sure all of these images are on the screen at the same time as the text, but they are nearby and not the same sort of distraction as a gallery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I concur in opposition. There are too many photos, some with a tenuous connection to the subject matter, that do not further the understanding of the subject matter. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please make an actionable opposition by noting objectionable images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good:
 * Image:20070913 Rush Street Bridge from Stamper's Book.JPG
 * All of the Rush Street Bridge photos in the template are good, but I'd select the best and feature one or two more prominently. Be careful though, or the visual focus of the article will be on the Bridge and not the Street.
 * OK:
 * Image:20070728 Ohio Street & Michigan Avenue from Rush Street.jpg & Image:Chicago nightscape, from far above Michigan Avenue at Rush Street.jpg - not photos of the subject street, but still good photos
 * Image:Benjamin Rush Painting by Peale 1783.jpg nice photo but really belongs more in an article about Dr. Rush. It's appropriate here, but much too large/prominent and detracts from the other photos about the street.
 * The Trump International Hotel and Tower photos: pick one. Put the rest in a Commons gallery.
 * Bad (for this article):
 * Image:20070912 Lamborghini Showroom.JPG it's inside a building on the street, so it's not relevant to the article.
 * Image:20070913 Rush Street Swing Bridge beyond Wrigley Building.JPG the building is the subject of the photo. Very nice, but should be on an article about the Wrigley Building, not Rush Street.
 * Image:Wacker Drive aerials.jpg - I don't see why this included. It doesn't help me understand the paragraph to the right of it
 * That's just my first pass. I'd pare down the selection by half and ditch those templates. The thumbnails are too small as a result, break user thumbnail preferences and just make the layout cluttered, detracting from the prose instead of adding to it. I know it takes too long and the USRD Maps Task Force is inactive (and it doesn't do street maps normally), but you should use a map of Chicago with the location of Rush Street highlighted in the infobox. If you can get me a close-up photo of a Chicago Street sign, I'll offer to make a sign for the infobox as well. I don't know if a topographic map is an option, but I'd look into that to see if you could crop one and highlight the street. I've seen them used for some of the minor NY state routes and for them, they've worked well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Those templates are the future of WP. They enable us to slide dozenas of images in without worrying about whether staggered images are squeezing.  As far as the images go, if I can get anything on Wed, I will and then we can swap out pare down, etc.  The forecast is not looking so hot though. I will try to get a better image of the care dealer, The Clare, some signage, and see if I can get some sort of view of the what it looks like.  The nightlife view will have to wait until the summer though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:20070913 Rush Street Swing Bridge beyond Wrigley Building.JPG and Image:Wacker Drive aerials.jpg serve to show that the Rush Street Bridge era has passed. They are important to the article although their quality may be bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I'm upgrading to neutral. The article still looks like a photo album compared to other articles. The photos recently swapped out provide a better illustration of the roadway, but there are still so many. Many of the photos would better serve the article and the content to be removed from the article and place into a gallery accessible by a link. infobox road will accommodate a commons category at the bottom of the infobox, as was done with M-35 (Michigan highway), another FAC currently posted. Yes, this object is a bit stylistic, but it is actionable and it does relate to the content of the article. Some photos illustrating a subject is a good thing, but too many just detracts. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too many images, some of which aren't applicable. Especially the one in the infobox, which shouldn't be there as that's not what Infobox road is designed for. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment many pictures have been swapped out and new images have been added that directly relate to the text. Almost every image relates directly to a point of interest in the text.  Galleries have alway been discouraged and were at one point against policy.  The point of images is to illustrate the text.  Previously limtations have been how many images could be added without squeezing the text.  Now new templates facilitate many more images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My oppose still stands; there are still too many images. It looks too cluttered. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What screen resolution are you viewing at?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1280 by 960... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since well over half the readers view at either 1280 or 1024 wide, I have looked at the article at both widths and did not really agree. However, I guess I need clarification because there are no real content complaints, this is such an odd position.  Is your complaint that 1.)You have never seen any FAs with this many images, 2.)You never seen FAs using multiple image, 3.)You feel that there are places in the text where there is squeezing, 4.) You see particular images that are not helpful to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And sometimes I look stuff up on my iPhone. Safari for iPhone/iPod touch renders the reflist as one column and only uses a resolution of 320x480 at 160 ppi. Wikipedia should be formatted as best as possible for all screen resolutions, which is a tricky task. Some people are still at 640x480 resolution. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are objecting because the formatting is not palatable for an iPod that is ridiculous. I just added some text in places where the images might haave overwhelmed the text. You did not reply to my prior query.  People with 640x480 are less than a fraction of a percent of current viewers although handheld devices may get there someday.  Do you see images that are not a service to the reader?  Is there squeezing at the most common resolutions (1280 or 1024)?  If so point to where.  If you are objecting for one of the first two reasons in my prior post please say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only commenting that there is a wide range of resolutions in use. Please direct me to a survey of the resolutions in use by readers of Wikipedia. I don't believe there is such a survey. My laptop screen is 1440x900, but I don't have Safari set to use the full screen. In fact my web browser only uses around two-thirds of the screen width. That means I'm likely using a non-standard size window. Others likely do the same, but without any data on user preferences, we have to attempt to format our articles to the widest possible range of sizes. About the only metric that could be used reliably is the printed page, but would we standardize on the US Letter or the European A4? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at how I formated images at Willie Gillis. What would you think of essentially a side gallery like that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Although the template has not been properly parameterized to accomodate images it is standard policy for artilces to have a main image prominently positioned toward the upper right of the article. MOS states: "The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.  Start an article with a right-aligned lead image."  You have given no compelling reason other than that is not the way we have our template parameterized.  WikiProject Streets does not have its own infobox so I used WikiProject Road's infobox.  There is no crime in this.  Objections should be related to WP:WIAFA and should be actionable.  An objection based on a stylistic preference against MOS is not really a valid one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum WikiProject Streets' official directive is to use Infobox road. If you don't consider the image in the infobox applicable to the article, you have not read the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's been done in the past is making a street sign for the road and then using that. However, you're missing the point - there's too many darn images in the article, infobox or not. That is definitely actionable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are not too many. I am just not using Category:Graphic templates correctly.  With templates like multiple image articles can now accomodate dozens and dozens of images.  I have rearranged a bit thanks to some encouragement--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if I understand you correctly, your compelling reason for not having a main image is that in the past people have made street signs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * query Does anyone recognized where this flickr photo was taken?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured it out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think a map would be very helpful. The verbal description of where the street goes is tortuous without a map to orient one. The street is short enough that a map won't have to be tiny scale. There are open source ways to create maps... consider Image:Ada Covered Bridge TIGER map.gif for example which is a capture of some TIGER screens, pasted together, or Image:Croton Dam photo locator map cropped.svg (also made from TIGER data but converted to the preferred svg format using inkscape).
 * Thanks for the map help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. (the image in question is Image:Rush Street via tiger.census.gov.gif) I fixed up the licensing and categories (over on Commons)... if it's wrong, please correct me, but the bots we have on Commons are quite efficient at tagging stuff where no dropdown was selected and no templates added. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the tail end of the article kind of peters out... I don't know that there is a good "conclusion" to an article about a street but I don't quite think that the bridge section should be the last section. It seems to end abruptly. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest there, though.
 * In all honesty, I thought the Bridge was my big finish. I could swap the Bridge and the Commerce section, but the commerce is something that I think peters out.  Since that makes more sense chronologically, I will try that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do other road articles that have made FA do? That's something to consider. Chronological is always a good way to organise things, to be sure. But the commerce section now seems a bit rambly too, so maybe switch them and THEN come up with a finish ?? Personally, my perception of Rush Street is colored by the many bars and clubs on or near it (PJ Clarks, Koko Taylors, etc) that I've enjoyed people watching in. But that's not much to hang an article on. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:A-Class U.S. city street articles is empty, and I was the author of the only article in Category:FA-Class U.S. city street articles. Prairie Avenue is a different animal.  It certainly does not have a big finish.  Most of my FAs don't have big finishes.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blockbuster movie script. Of course, I am receptive to gramatical suggestions, but lack of a big finish is not really such an actionable complaint.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I think maybe you're taking this personally, and I apologise for that. I went off and looked at a few other articles that are FA. Many of them are completely in chrono and they end with "and now X is used for Y" or something else. Not a big finish (I'm using the term because you used it first...). Others end with an analysis of significance. So no, a big finish isn't needed. I'm not a FA regular. I'm just a dilettante at this, here because you asked me to stop by. I'd just go with chronological ordering. If you can find something about the cultural significance today, Maybe add it. or maybe just not worry about it at all. I dunno. But an article does need SOMETHING to let the reader know they reached the end. It shouldn't stop like there was more to say but the authors haven't gotten to it yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't perceive your complaints as personal discredits towards me. I am just not sure what to do.  I just added some more stuff. I don't think any of it belongs at the end, but it makes the article longer and improves the text/photo ratio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I love pictures but I do see what some are saying that maybe there are too many. That's just a comment, not an actionable item.
 * Do you see images that do not help the reader?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no single picture you can point to and say "this helps the reader in no possible way", I can find a reason to include each and every one if I try. And yet, there are, taken as a gestalt, too many, in my view. That's an aesthetic judgement on my part. Hence I'm not claiming I'd oppose over it. Does that help at all? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just commented above to another neutral respondent. Basically I was troubled by a request to go from 30 images that help the reader to 10 images that help the reader. Previous to the boxing cluttered images was the complaint, but that is not the issue now.  Also squeezing is not an issue.  Thus, it sounds like you are requesting that I remove 20 images that cause no problems and help the reader as a matter of personal preference.  Please reconsider WP:WIAFA.  Keep in mind that multiple image is a new template so it will seem different from what you have seen before.  I think in the future more images will be common in articles.  You should analyze whether there are any remaining problems with the images given the new boxed format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think there are too many images. It's not the norm here to have that many pictures. Maybe it will be eventually, and this article, when it passes FA, will help push the MoS and general policy in that direction. Or maybe not, I have no idea. I'm not opposing over anything after all, just sharing my aesthetic perception. Again, I am not a regular here. Do what you like with my views, I make no claim they are worth anything, but to me, personally, it seems too busy, and I love images. Sometimes the way to make something better is to edit it, that is, make it smaller. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to go out and add another photo such as one of the five star hotels. I am sort of handcuffed by the perception of photos now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting article (and thanks for the improvements to my favourite article that resulted from work on this one). Good luck with it! ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose—Problems in the writing. Needs a fresh person on the copy-editing. Weed out inappropriate statements and expressions. Vagueness and repetition. Throughout, not just these random examples, please.
 * "richest neighborhoods"—culturally? or do you mean "wealthiest"? (and I see "rich" again in the lead). "and has businesses that correspond to the tastes of its residents." Is that POV, second-guessing the tastes of residents in an article lead? Inappropriate, since unverifiable at the least. Who knows where the residents go to dine?
 * Rich people demand expensive things like world-class spas, five-star hotels, top-rated restaurants, and expensive cars. I have changed taste to demand.  Demand for expensive things can only be from people who can afford them.  I never said that the same rich people who live in the neighborhood actually buy from these establishments.  It may be that other wealthy people come to buy from the neighborhood famous for having wealthy residents.  However, saying that the businesses correspond to the wealth of the residents is not POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The street, which was named after Declaration of Independence signator Benjamin Rush,[1] is currently known for its nightlife, especially at the northern end, which features entertainment that attracts people from near and far." Winding snake of a sentence. The last four words are inappropriate in an encyclopedic register.
 * "The various Rush Street Bridges have a rich history both in terms of facilitating vehicular land traffic and in terms of being a commercial port location." I hate "various". "in terms of" twice, both constructions clumsy.
 * rephrased without changing meaning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "However,"—it doesn't contradict the preceding text. TONY   (talk)  09:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reread. It contradicts the preceding text as it was and as it is after the rewrite as follows:
 * It was a prominent commercial port, and commerce has declined.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a prominent way for land traffic, and the Michigan Avenue Bridge has replace it in this role.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any way you can choose just a couple images and stick with them? The layout on my screen, even with multiple image, isn't good, and the prose is squeezed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is formatted for viewers with 1280 or 1024 width screen resolutions (which are over half of general internet users) and wider. The images are less than 400px wide in total.  What resolution are you viewing with that you see squeezing with less than 400px.  Of course, if you don't use your whole screen it might squeeze.  Do you use your whole screen?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: general areas of concern are noted below. (Note on my absence this weekend: I believe issues substantial enough to not be remediable before I return.  I've opposed, however, so, out of fairness and to reassure TonyTheTiger, I will make time to check back in and follow up.)
 * Prose: WP:WEASEL including "some of the finest restaurants and bars", "some of the most elite Chicago socialites", "some still refer"; WP:PEACOCK including "quality dining experiences", "important residences", "important Chicago neighborhoods" (important to whom?); grammar (e.g. "on October 8, 1871 when") and number agreement ("herd of cattle ... were"; herd is a collective noun and, in this context, singular in AmEng). Generally awkward prose such as "At the Wabash crossing...a park exists"and aforementioned examples by Tony.  As I'm pressed for time, I haven't listed all prose issues; the prose is such, however, that a third party copy edit seems quite warranted.
 * WRT to WP:WEASEL Rm some in each instance mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WRT to WP:PEACOCK I have removed the named terms and I have requested a visit from WP:LOCE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SS/criterion 1A: "Geography" section: why is description of all of the cross streets necessary? As a reader, my eyes glaze over.  "Commerce and education": why are all of the addresses needed?  It comes across a bit too much like a Chicago guide book and, again, as a reader, it's information overload that impairs the flow and readability of the article.
 * First of all, since I am the author of the only FA in WP:USST, I will refer to three successful May WP:FAs from WP:USRD: M-35 (Michigan highway), Interstate 15 in Arizona, Chickasaw Turnpike. You can not possibly complain about detailed descriptions in this article and not object to the descriptions of these routes, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Second of all what does WP:SS have to do with an article this short. Although a good article could and should be written about the Rush Street Bridge, you do not seem to be making an SS point about that here.  In addition, what is here would be a good summary of a proper and full article about the Bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Prose utilized in other articles is not germane to this FAC. As articulated above, this article contains superfluous information/detail which negatively impacts flow and other aspects of readability. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Images: Image:Wacker Drive aerials.jpg: source site confirms it was created/published in 1926. Why, then, is the license claiming publication before 1923?  The restrictions page says the library is "unaware of any copyright" (being unaware does not mean it doesn't exist) and explicitly says use of the image should be done under fair use.  Where is the basis for the PD claim?  Concern has be raised about number the images.  The current formating is superior to the article's initial state, but I still believe it goes too far.  If policies/guidelines are needed to be actionable, I think reasonable arguments could be made on WP:WIAFA: "professional standards of writing and presentation" and the spirit of WP:SS.  The number of images is simply superflous; the rationale of providing "pictorial detail" isn't untrue (and is great marketing!), but is simply unnecessary and, even counterproductive to an encyclopedia article tasked with a reasonable summary of the topic.  Why are so many images necessary or even helpful in understanding the topic?  Images should supplement an article, not dominate it.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed 1926 image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.