Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 21:59, 26 July 2008 [1].

BP Pedestrian Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog


User:Torsodog and I have been attempting to pursue a WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive for Millennium Park. Although we have promoted 10 WP:GAs since June 4th, this is the first feature we have nominated at FAC since the drive began. We were going to nominate Cloud Gate first, but some IP editors have been disruptive causing us to semi-protect the page and block one of them. While we are waiting for that one to pass stability, we are nominating this one. Loggie has copyedited most of our articles in the last few weeks.-TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I just did a fair amount of copy-editing on this article. But it needs more. It also needs restructuring. At present, the structure is far from clear, and jumps about all over the place. Why, for instance, is there a section entitled "Details"? It's not as though the other sections are lacking details.  ;) There should probably be a section devoted to design, for instance. Another perhaps to planning (i.e. the bridge's purpose and brief before Gehry was involved). And how did Gehry get the commission: was there a public competition, for instance? In general, I think that this article still has some way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a lot of images here competing for attention. Would this be a case for a "gallery" down the bottom? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that the description of the road has recently been changed to call it an "eight-lane highway"; however, judging from the main picture in the infobox, it is in fact only six lanes at least at the point at which the bridge crosses it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kamin describes it as eight-lane in at least one of the articles referenced. At the intersection the fourth lane is a turning lane and at the point the bridge crosses the fourth lane is the entrance ramp to the garage upon which the column sits. You can see it emerge just south of the column. I just switched to agree with the Pulitzer Prize winning architecture critic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All images check out fine. Images uploaded from Flickr to Commons have been verified on Commons. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some comments (not meant to be comprehensive): — Zagalejo 20:06, July 22, 2008 — continues after insertion below
  • There's way too much going on in that first sentence. Split it into two sentences, and (even thoughI know you don't like to do it) maybe drop some of the geographic descriptors.
  • I rearranged things a little bit. But as I said at the Trump Tower FAC, I'm not a big fan of those long strings of prepositional phrases that aren't really necessary for readers. If I had my way, the first two sentences would look like this: "BP Pedestrian Bridge, or simply BP Bridge, is a girder bridge in downtown Chicago. It spans Columbus Drive to connect Daley Bicentennial Plaza with Millennium Park." Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer that. But I still think "downtown Chicago" is more elegant (and more meaningful to most readers) than "the Loop community area of Chicago". (You could hide the link to Chicago Loop behind "downtown".) And is Milennium Park actually part of Grant Park? Or is it considered separate? Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a subsequent design, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley disliked Gehry's original design of an 800 to 900-foot (270 m) bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs.
I think you mean, "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley disliked Gehry's subsequent design of an 800 to 900-foot (270 m) bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs." Is that right?
  • What exactly is the connection between this bridge and the lawn seating at Pritzker Pavilion? That paragraph (in "Controversies") isn't clear.
  • The implication is a fear of vandalism of this very artisitic structure during a period of frustration for park patrons. It is sort of implicit and there is no other explanation of why the bridge would be closed on a summer day, but two plus two is kind of easy to figure out. What do you think should be in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, but it seems like the only source for the bridge closing is from a Letters to the Editor page. If we don't have a better source, maybe we shouldn't mention it at all. Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really concerned about the reliability of that source. But if that's the only source to mention the bridge closure, then maybe the bridge closure simply isn't notable enough to mention. Zagalejo^^^ 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it rises to a higher standard of notability than whatever John McCain has to say these days on one level, although I see your point. I guess the point is that it was a small part of one of the two or three biggest controversies in the short history of the park and such was noted in the secondary sources. It is not like we are dealing with an article that is too long. There is room for this type of controversy in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the thing. If I describe this as the most beautiful bridge in the world or rant and rave about how great it is that this architectural object is so beautiful that it is almost a piece of art people are going to ask "Well isn't there anything bad or controversial about the bridge." That section tells you the biggest controversies. The bridge is only four years old. Maybe when it is fifty the story won't be worth telling, but if people want a balanced article with the bridges foibles to date, these are they. You are sort of now yanking me around for presenting what people are going to ask for if I omit it aren't you. In every article that has extensive praise people want to know about controversies and I can't make them up if they don't exist and I can't blow them up if they are too small. In this case, I present a controversy as it happened. We really almost must leave it in the article for balance about this work of art don't we.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do think the second paragraph of that section is worth-keeping. It's interesting that the bridge was not adequately designed for Chicago winters. (Indeed, I thought that was the most interesting thing in the article.) So, I'm not asking you to remove the Controversy section altogether. But is it really that important to mention that the bridge was closed for one day, especially when the only source we have is a letter to the editor? I can't imagine that's the sort of information people are looking for. It's just trivia. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many respects the first day that they charged for Great Lawn seating at the Pritzker Pavilion is one of the most important days in the history of the park and related events are not really just trivia. If we were to make a list of the five most important days in the history of the park, I think this would be on the list so the bridge was not just closed for a random day. It was closed for a groundbreaking day and for good reason. The reader may find it interesting to note that there is a fear of vandalism. The encyclopedic component is being missed because I have asked for advice on addressing the implicit vandalism fear, which is a great concern for such a work. You instead say don't teach the reader about the vandalism fear just ignore it. The vandalism fear helps to mark this work as a great piece of art. It is kind of like saying so and so has risen to the level of popularity that they hire a bodyguard. The bridge is an important enough work of art that precautions against vandalism are taken. That is the story here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is original research, based on the most tenuous of evidence: a letter to the editor asking "Why in the world did the bridge need to be closed?" It's not at all clear that the reason is to prevent vandalism, or even that it's a response to public dissatisfaction with charging for lawn seats. Indeed, the letter writer himself doesn't seem to think so: he suggests it's "because Tori Amos and her crew need to have the world's most expensive red carpet or something." This whole section needs to go, unless you can come up with some real controversies. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some new comments relating to that section:
  • Phrases like "Scultpural characteristics" and "sculptural elements" might be too vague for readers who don't normally view architecture articles. Are those technical terms? I'm not sure where you draw the line between "sculptural elements" and "architectural elements".
  • In a sense, I am out of my element when using the word sculptural. In truth, it came from a conversation at WikiProject Visual Arts. It seems to be the word a visual arts person uses to describe the artistic component of an architectural object. I presume it was used properly in the context of the sentence and used it in the article in that way. I do not recall if I saw the word in any of the secondary sources that I used. Do you think a reader of the theme section would understand that sculptural means the artistic component of architecture? Kamin uses the phrase "part sculpture" in the sense that it is partly a work of art. I presume your problem is with the adjective sculptural and not with either characteristics or elements and have responded as such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as I look at Gilfoyle "sculptural abstraction" is a term from his book. It seems sculptural is understood to mean the artistic component of architecture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed it meant something like that. Still, I'd prefer that the language in the article were clearer. To make that kind of distinction between "artistic" and "architectural" just begs too many questions about how we define "art". Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just gave you two points of reference for sculptural being the proper terminology. I think we are suppose to use language that people in the field use. Books on the park use the term and WPians in at WP:WPVA use the term. If you don't understand it that does not make it the wrong term to use. If you said "Tony you are using sculptural incorrectly." I would change it. It seems to me like you are saying "Tony you are using sculptural the way all the people who understand art use it and I am not familiar with this use." I doesn't make sense to change it for that reason because anyone that doesn't have a clue could then come tell me to yank out proper verbiage because they don't have a clue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But remember, we're supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia. The article should be accessible to anyone. Could you at least tell us which specific structural parts of the bridge are being concealed? Zagalejo^^^ 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the NYT article compares Cloud Gate to Gehry's band shell, not the bridge.
  • As I return to the article with the phrase "While Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Gehry both work with stainless steel, their sensibilities couldn't be more different; the artist hides seams, while the architect revels in them." I find it as the lead in a paragraph between the paragraphs about the Cloud Gate and the BP Pedestrian Bridge. The Bandshell discussion is much earlier in the article although this paragraph does mention the bandshell. This paragraph is clearly a transitional paragraph from Cloud Gate to BP Pedestrian Bridge with a mention of the bandshell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's meant as a transition to the next section. In any case, the only explicit comparison they make is between the bandshell and the Bean, and they don't say anything about the bridge's seams. Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the structure of the article
  • Introduction
  • One paragraph with a section title "THE PERISTYLE" referencing Wrigley Square
  • One paragraph with a section title "THE BAND SHELL" referencing Jay Pritzker Pavilion
  • Two paragraphs with a section title "THE FOUNTAIN" referencing Crown Fountain
  • Three paragraphs with a section title "THE JELLYBEAN" referencing Cloud Gate
  • One paragraph with a section title "THE BRIDGE" referencing BP Pedestrian Bridge
We are talking about the third paragraph following the section title JELLYBEAN. I do not think this paragraph is referencing the Band Shell exclusively as you suggest. The Bandshell is not even known for its seams while the Bridge is. If an art critic is talking about visible seams in the park he is talking about the bridge. You can mention the bandshell in any sentence following a reference to seams, but when one talks about visible seams in this park it is about the shingles on the Bridge. No other argument is really possible. Look at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion and try to make an argument that an artist discussing seams is talking about the Pavilion to me with a straight face. This is not possible, IMO. In the abstract it might seem as if he is talking about the bandshell because of the following sentence. It is not very likely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous critical references to the snakelike bridge and its scales. I have seen no critical references to gaps, joints, ridges, grooves, etc. for the Pavilion. The most common adjective describing the Bridge is snakelike, while the most common adjective for the Pavilion is flowing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what the NYT article says: "While Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Gehry both work with stainless steel, their sensibilities couldn't be more different; the artist hides seams, while the architect revels in them. Indeed, Mr. Gehry's band shell could be a Kapoor sculpture shredded and allowed to weather." It says nothing explicit about the bridge's "seams" or "scales" -- and remember, this is a New York paper, so they can't assume readers have seen the bridge for themselves. If there are numerous critical references referring to the "scales", then just cite some of those. Forget about the NYT article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but "them" doesn't necessarily refer to any features of the bridge. Again, I'm sure there are other sources you can use to support the statement you want to make. You don't need to cling to that NYT article. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "reveled" is basically lifted from the NYT article (although put into a different tense). Use your own words as much as possible. There are plenty of synonyms for "revel".
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph is very wordy.
  • Looking at it again, I think that you could say everything from those first three sentences in one sentence. The three sentences repeat a lot of the same ideas. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation uses the phrase towering human-made structures and later human-made skyscrapers and the phrase natural, sublime beauty of Lake Michigan in a paragraph that goes on and on about "essence of space", "physical reflections of open space", "endless water", and goes on and on about artistic elements. I am paraphrasing lengthy prose, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "belvedere" is enough to imply that someone thinks the views are pretty. Couldn't you just say that "the bridge provides views of both the Historic Michigan Boulevard District and Lake Michigan"? Zagalejo^^^ 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On Firefox, the entire article is squeezed by those three huge image boxes. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you figured out your screen resolution yet, so I can respond. I could rearrange and resize images and am willing to do so. Just tell me what the problem is. I kind of think the first image box is important to the reader. It could be moved. The other two image boxes are in locations where they should not be a problem for most. However, in the last image box, I was considering moving the middle image toward the top of the article because it shows the center column that was discussed in the preliminary design section. I think the images of this bridge are important for the reader and should be handled carefully.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As is the case now, I often edit on computers other than mine, thus I'm afraid I cannot find the answer to that. As I have said before, Wikimedia Commons is for people to look at images, whereas Wikipedia is for people to read articles. As I know that you disagree with my opinion, I'll give you a couple suggestions. First, you could probably remove all but one of the "BP Pedestrian Bridge from different perspectives" images, as they show more or less the same thing. Also, maybe move an image from the top of the article to the "Credits" section? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am going to have trouble arguing with you about the three perspective images in a politically correct manner. Suffice it to say from a visual arts perspective they are very different views. The left provides the best geometric perspective of the vertical dimension. The right provides an excellent perpective of the horizontal dimension of the curvature. I should probably move these images to a section describing the geometric complexity of the sculptural bridge. Which image do you think should be moved to the credits section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you are working with me on rearranging the images. I moved the perspectives into the theme section and moved a narrower image box to the top where on some views it will squeeze less with the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The conversion to vertical image boxes is O.K. except for the perspectives, which look goofy. I resized them a bit to make them less likely to squeeze.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Most of the article is starting to look better. The "Final design" section is the only one that is terribly squeezed at this point. I moved one of the images that was crowing the Design section to the Credits sections, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. Also, I'm not sure what "I am going to have trouble arguing with you about the three perspective images in a politically correct manner" is intended to imply. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have reverted two of the layout changes toward the bottom because of some additional text and reformatting that should cause less squeezing because pictures will not be opposite each other. One image box remains narrower than the infobox and the other one in the themes section has been resized a bit to be smaller than it was originally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, titles of weblinks shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Current ref 17 is lacking a last access date (BP Pedestrian Bridge in the Sturturae databse.) Also, what makes this a reliable source? It says it solicts submissions from everyone...
    • The problem is with the template. The {{Structurae}} template does not have an accessdate parameter like a {{cite web}} template. I have requested a change in the template at User_talk:Hqb#Template:Structurae.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to WP:RS I see the following at [3]: "Structurae is brought to you by Nicolas Janberg, structural and bridge engineer by profession, who works on this site full time on his own, but who obtains a lot of help and information from a large number of professionals from around the world. Hundreds of engineers and architects, professors and students, professionals and amateurs — whom we wish to thank here wholeheartedly — have contributed to this database." It seems to me that Janberg would be a reliable source and that he obtains a lot of help from professionals. It sound not much different from an architecture critic who has industry sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can probably add the last access date manually after the template, solving that problem. The other issue about RS, I'm going to leave this one for other reviewers to decide, as I think it's borderline. Generally, we want to see sources for information on websites or in books. However, it's not like this is highly contentious information either, so, I'll leave it for my fellow reviewers to decide for themselves. (Taking this FAC off my watchlist!)
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment to Tony Look, I don't plan on spending a month arguing with you over this. Do realize that my comments were just samples of problems in the article. Every time I look at it, I find new things that need fixing. I'd advise you to withdraw now, and let a copyeditor work his or her way through it without being rushed. Zagalejo^^^ 07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose ....

  • "who donated $5 million to the Park's construction, the bridge is the first Gehry-designed bridge to have been constructed"—repetition.
  • "Additionally, the bridge is a sound barrier and a connecting link between Millennium Park and points east, such as the nearby lakefront." and ... and: We could do with a comma here to make the sentence structure easier to ride over. What does "and points east, such as the nearby lakefront" mean?
  • MOS—the comma needs to be after the closing quotations marks. Edward Uhlir said "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture," and noted ...
  • Our readers shouldn't have to go through clicking a link and coming back to learn what "berm" means. Please define within commas or parentheses on the spot: the linked article says that a berm is "a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas." Perhaps just part of this will do, interpolated into the sentence.
  • Multihyphen-absent gobbledygook. "only called for a 170-foot (51.8 m) long 20-foot (6.1 m) wide bridge"—(1) This occurs quite a lot in architectural articles, and is very clumsy with the conversions (even without, a triple hyphenated compound epithet is required. Look: "only called for a 170-foot-long, 20-foot-wide bridge"—correct, but gawky. Here's your model for doing it: "called for a bridge only 170 ft (51.8 m) long and 20 feet (6.1 m) wide". See? Very simple recasting. I see this is used in "Final design" already. (2) Put "only" as late in the sentence as possible. Only called for? Rather than insisted? No.
  • En dashes would be so much nicer: "an 800-to-900-foot (240 to 270 m) bridge"—>"an 800–900-foot (240–270 m) bridge. Again, this should be common fair for text on this field. But why not recast as I've suggested above? ", thus ... "a bridge 800–900 feet (240–270 m) long". Much better.
  • I hate "which caused". "... bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs." Try bridge; Gehry subsequently came up ....". I think the causality is obvious and doesn't need to be marked.
  • "northwest-southeast"—nope, MOS wants an en dash, since it's directional
  • "with ramps on the west, leading south, and the east, leading north"—bumpety-bump bump. And confusing. You can't say "western ramps leading south, and ...", can you?
  • "cantilever"—don't write for experts; let us dummies into it too, and don't expect people to divert to links to find out what specialist terms mean. "... cantilevers (beams supported on one end) from opposing ...". Easy. Remember that most people in the world still have dial-up. So now your sentence is a little longer, simply split it after "street" with a semicolon plus "this".

Please don't treat this as the fixit list. I'm not reading further, but want to point out why whatever copy-editing you've thus far arranged for needs to be augmented by more careful work.

I find that this nomination was premature, and quite understand Zagalejo's frustration. The FAC page should not be this long—it's drawing our precious reviewer resources away from dealing with other articles. Please nominate articles that avoid the problems reviewers are having to point out time and again. I'd like to see evidence of evolving skill in their preparation based on the feedback received in the past.

  • Main complaints have been links in the past. This was not an issue here. Excessive images have been a problem in the past and there has been minimal complaints about that here. I have attempted to seek guidance from a reasonable number of people before presenting this here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple suspension footbridge over the Kotmale river in Sri Lanka
. The appalling overlinking in your previous nominations is much, much better here, and look, we can actually see the high-value links that were previously embedded in a blue haze. But I see a sentence that spoils it: I wonder why, for example, "footbridge" is linked. It tells us: "A footbridge is a bridge designed for pedestrians and in some cases cyclists and horse riders, rather than vehicular traffic." Hey, that's useful. And the image casts new light on the BP Pedestrian Bridge. That's called diversionary browsing, and should be discouraged as a technical policy; rather, readers who want to jungle their way through tree-branches can easily type in any item they see in the article. Then we have that obscure term "handrails"; "parapets" might be worth linking, but not the others; you need to assume that the reader has a reasonable knowledge of English vocabulary. Tony (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by dvdrw
  • Support - looks good to me! dvdrw 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC) After TonyTheTiger's request that I say something more than just support I noticed the following...[reply]
  • 1)In the second line in the "themes" section it says, "Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system.[7]" You are paraphrasing him in this sentence, but to my ear you are just jumbling his words together. I would use a direct quotation instead. Starting with "Kamin describes the bridge as a [...]" I expected to hear a quotation. I was also expecting to hear about its serpentine quality since it is in the "themes" section, and this is mentioned by Kamin first off in the citation. This is most likely the formal concept for this bridge, Gehry often uses animal themes for his buildings-- snakes and fish especially with the shingle-like quality of their scales. Yes, this is in the lead but it should be in "themes" as well. I would consider moving "themes" under the "design" heading, as these where determined in the design process.
    • Do you have a source for the statement that Gehry often uses animal themes? I added a bit about the snakes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found plenty of sources along these lines. I'm not trying to say this is all he's doing, there is a lot more there. Yet there is often a biomorphic quality to his works.[4] Some specific examples of animals are fish,[5] notably gefilte fish and the Guggenheim,[6] but there also figure people,[7] and in one building, and in some sculptures a horse head;[8] but what you are interested in for this article are snakes, so maybe you could talk about his early snake lamps [9] for context. You could mention that the siding in his other projects such as the Guggenheim have a scale-like quality.[10] There is a coiled snake project I remember seeing but unfortunately I can't find it now. dvdrw 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence you are referencing was modified by another FAC reviewer. I can not please everyone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2)The sources: very good, but I would try to find some to add that are not Chicago newspapers, as it starts to sound monolithic. Look for ideas in architectural magazines and journals.
  • 3)From the second to last sentence in the lead, "[...] and is known for its aesthetics." I would qualify "aesthetics" here. I think this is a very descriptive moment, and I wouldn't hesitate to say "fluid aesthetic" or "biomorphic aesthetic." "Aesthetics" alone seems to vague and I think this project has a specific aesthetic that you should try to describe in this instance. Even if intentionally vague it could be expanded upon without all the description going to engineering and function.
  • These may not sound like my reasons for supporting, but I think after these concerns and the others on this page are met it should meet the criteria beyond doubt. I can look even closer tomorrow, but I'm going to leave it at this for now.
Regards, dvdrw 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying again and again that you've had this and that person copy-edit it already is irrelevant. We can go only by what we see. How are you going to deal with the rest? (The bit that I haven't taken samples from.)? My samples are from one small part, to illustrate the urgent need for further work on the writing. Do you have someone in mind? Please search. Tony (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I plead with you to take Zagalejo up on his/her offer so that there is not another Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) which used up tremendous FAC resources to no useful end, from my point of view. There is not a need, in fact it is not fair to FAC, for you to juggle so many balls. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreement with Zagalejo and Mattisse: Indeed, TTT, you're not engaging with the point that is being made in unison by a number of reviewers. Every nomination here demands scarce reviewer resources, and we keep pointing out to you—to no avail, it seems—that you're taking up a disproportionate slice of these resources. It's not fair on a number of counts: I'm sure you can work those out. The sheer size of your nomination pages indicates that something is wrong. And just a relatively small point, framing your GAs as having done something "for the project" is not something I'd be boasting about. GAs are worth little because the process is not rigorous. I want to see a significant slowing in your rate of nominations, and MUCH better preparation so that there isn't a royal commission here into each one. Tony (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:FAC rules are clear each nominator can nominate one at a time. The disproportionate slice charge was thrown at me about 75 GAs ago at WT:GAC around the New Year when I had about 30 concurrent noms. More than half of those are now GAs. GA decided to match my nomination time donation with reviewer time donation and the GA project has gotten another 75 or so GAs out of me. There are constructive ways to participate at FAC and there are prohibitive ways to contribute. It is quite possible to derail any FA nomination with well-timed subterfuge. You and I know full well that you can describe an article as a piece of crap or as heavenly and get a cadre to follow along. You and I have seen some of the crap that you describe as well written because you like it where I have come by and pointed out its terrible construction.). I promise you I could take half of the most recent FA promotions that have had your endorsement and make it look like they can not write. Of late, you have decided to derail all my FACs. You have done so masterfully. I think you have done it enough times to RFA proof me.
    • You do make a valid point that being the most productive GA producer on all of wikipedia is far from commendable (in some world somewhere). First of all, there are three types of GAs. There are articles that did not exist where I have done more than a little by taking them to GA from nowhere. E.G., More Demi Moore has gotten at least 8984 hits in each of its first five months on WP. Regardless of whether the process is rigorous or not, having a half decent article on a subject a lot of people want to read about is a good contribution. It is a different contribution than vandal fighting on a page that gets 50000 hits a day but it is still a non-trivial contribution. I have also jumped onboard in the creation of a GA by another editor. In this case, the article would have been created, but became a better resource because of my involvement. These are certainly less important contributions because the article merely got improved by my involvement and it was not so important because it did not even exist before. Then there are articles like Jack Kemp, where they are moderately traveled pages that look like crap when I arrived. Cleaning up crap is a good thing. Not all my cleanup GAs started out this bad, but improving pages is a contribution. It may not rank up there with having articles anointed FA
    • With respect to the slowing of my rate, I am allowed one active thing in the FAC queue at a time. I will continue to present things and you are free to derail them at your leisure in any way that entertains you. I only wish you would be as constructive with my nomination as you are with some of the half-assed grammar ones that you commend so often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was the first to comment on this FAC, and as is often the case I have been reserving judgement until now. The article's OK, and there's been a fair amount of improvement. But not enough, I feel, to make me feel confident that it'll reach FA standard any time soon. There are both broad structural problems and more local sentence-level issues. As an example of the former, I still don't know what "Themes" is meant to mean. (The word "theme" is not used once in that section.) As an example of the latter, take the repetition in the (now very short) section on "Controversies": "Another concern is [. . .]. An additional concern [. . .]." Meanwhile, I'm not sure that the nominator's comporting himself in the most helpful manner, though I do recognize that the work that he is putting in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like you are noting a short controversy section. I have reworked it and added back some removed content that now seems more relevant. Broad structural problems that you don't describe is not constructive and not even actionable. Tell me something that I can fix. I may by the end of the day withdraw this and nominate an alternate candidate. In this case, please comment when I put this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to play guessing games about what it "seems like" I'm noting! The example of broad structural problems (which I have been mentioning for some time: see unstruck comments above) was the "Themes" section. I've asked this already, but what is this doing? Why is it here? My guess is that by themes you mean "aesthetics" (a very different concept, of course). But I doubt you're sure, yourself. Second, I gave you an example of sentence-level repetition. (I mentioned only in passing the short "Controversies" section, which is structural rather than sentence-level). Such repetition continues to afflict the prose throughout, though it has been improved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope you pass by the PR and give more detail on your concerns. There is a triumverate asking for a withdrawal of this nom, so I will withdraw it and nominate something else. As for whether a better section title is Aesthetic, I will take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close request After numerous responses that this needs retooling I am going to move this to PR and move on to other editorial work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/BP_Pedestrian_Bridge/archive1&oldid=1088824292"