Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Crown Fountain/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crown Fountain[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is well on its way to becoming a FA. I would like some second opinions on this, as well as ANY comments that could help get the article to FA status.

Thanks, Torsodog (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the support. I have nomed this twice at WP:FAC and it has failed. I have tried PR and did not get much feedback to improve the article. When you nom at WP:FAC let me know and I will sign on as co. I am the leading editor by edit count. I think the article may need some technical expertise that I don't have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a well known artwork. Here are some suggestions for improvement, most of which are failry nit-picky, with an eye to potential problems in FAC:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are 68 FAs at Category:FA-Class Architecture articles and some of them may be useful model articles.
  • Since the lead is a summary of the article (or should be), refs are not really needed in it except for direct quotes. See WP:LEAD
    • There are two styles of lead, each equally acceptable. 1. Fully cited where all important facts are cited. 2. Uncited where all important facts are cited in the main body instead of the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the most difficult FA criteria for many articles to meet is to have prose that is professional and near brilliant. The biggest problem I see is that the article prose needs to be cleaned up some. See WP:WIAFA
  •  Done I have not heard of the Loop being referred to as a "community area" before - is this common? If not, is there a better word that cold be linked to the article? See Crown Fountain is an interactive public fountain in Millennium Park, in the Loop community area of Chicago ...
    • All of the community areas except the Loop would be most appropriately referred to in this way. This is how the Library of Congress image collection (Chicago Daily News Collection) describes each photo. The loop is so unique among the community areas that it is known outside of Chicago by its name without the term community area following. It makes the general rule hard to handle. I wold prefer to use the proper term, neighborhood is incorrect and area is imprecise. However, for the Loop it is a tough call.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could it just be "the Loop area" with area linked to community area? Technically the park is outside the true Loop (made by the El tracks), right? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tone needs to be more encyclopedic in several places - frolicking in ... makes the fountain a place not only to go to see others and to be seen frolicking with friends and family ... or
  • Another problem is general wordiness - FA prose is supposed to avoid redundancy. For example, this sentence from the lead
The fondness of the public for the aesthetics of the fountain caused several elements of Chicago's society to voice a unified public opinion against the controversial use of surveillance cameras, which resulted in the immediate removal of the cameras.[8]

could be modified to something more like

When surveillance cameras were installed on the popular fountain, a public outcry led to their immediate removal.
  • Article needs a copyedit - some examples follow:
    •  Done normal usage seems to be "the Governor of Illinois", not "the Illinois Governor"
    • "reputed" does not seem to the right verb in The fountain and the entire park in general are reputed for their universal design.[9]
    •  Done use photographed or filmed instead of "shot" in Of the original 1,051 subjects shot, 960 videos were determined to be usable for the project.
  •  Done I like some of the multiple images in one frame, but they seem overused. For example Image:20070616 Crown Fountain.JPG by itself seems fine to me - no need to put a second image beside it. In general articles are only supposed to set single image widths to thumb to allow reader preferences on size to take over - see WP:MOS#Images
  •  Done Have a zero before a decimal "0.25" not ".25"
  •  Done Some things seem illogical - Plensa decided to use four-minute videos for each face and one minute of spouting water.[7] Thus each display is five minutes,[3] makes it sound like there is no face video when the water spouts out, but the photos and other descriptions make it clear this is not the case. Or The water is filtered and pumped from the underground parking garage. - makes is sound like cars are parked in the fountain reservoir.
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themselves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Any negative criticisms of the fountain?
  • Overall this gets most things right - the refs look good (although you might want to check that all meet WP:RS, there is a lot of information and great pictures. It just needs some polishing of the language.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A second look from Ruhrfisch As requested, here is a second look at the article. I replied in a few places above, here are a few other thoughts:

  • I checked a reference at random, choosing the sentence The fountain has been praised by both city residents and trained architects for its artistic contribution to Millennium Park.[4] in the lead. I looked up the New York Times article and this was all it had to say about the fountain: At the Crown Fountain, kids of all ages screamed and scampered about under jets of water squirting from two tall oblong towers covered in L.E.D. screens that displayed the faces of ordinary Chicagoans. No mention of architects or artisitic contributions. Hopefully this is an isolated case, but refs have to back up what the text says.
  • The article still could use a copyedit to polish the prose
  • I still find some word choices odd - "Loop community area" (see above), calling a drainage slit a "crack" (crack sounds like something accidental / unplanned to me), or including the "®" symbol in "Electronic Theatre Controls (ETC) Emphasis® control system" - Coca Cola is ®, but the article does not use the symbol.
  • I would aks for copyediting help at WP:PRV or from one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE (ask on the editor's talk page, LOCE is very slow / dead?).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Crown_Fountain/archive1&oldid=1078818873"