Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive2

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 02:29, 2 October 2008 [1].

Cloud Gate

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog

previous FAC (05:04, 2 September 2008)

I'm renominating this article for featured article because it is one of the better articles in the WP:CHIFTD. We have responded to recent WP:PR, WP:GAR, WP:FAC and talk page concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments - Three images are labeled both non-free and creative commons. The images should be arranged, alternating left and right per Wikipedia:MOS#Images Fasach Nua (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the subsections to make the alternation of images more appealing. I have also removed the CC licensing from 2 of the 3 non-free images. The last one (of the omphalos) I will do after work when I have time to beef up the rationale a bit while I'm at it. --Torsodog^Talk 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped the sides of the images as per WP:ACCESSIBILITY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images should have both non-free and creative commons labels. There are multiple copyrights to consider: the copyright of the artist (which is non free) and the copyright of the photographer (creative commons). —Jeremy (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this when making these edits, but since I'm not all that knowledgeable when dealing with copyrights, I assumed the first comment was correct. If this is indeed the correct policy, I will revert my edits. --Torsodog^Talk 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox images are non-free (or contain non-free components) then only one can be justified under WP:NFCC minimal usage Fasach Nua (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous FAC, the images and their FURs were discussed individually, case-by-case until it was agreed upon that the current three images in the article were the only ones that could be rationally included. I was under the impression that the image issue was resolved in the last FAC... --Torsodog^Talk 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point us to policy or prior discussions at WP:FAL whereby more than one FU image was deemed overuse. I am wondering if you are just making up a new interpretation here or if there is any established basis for your complaint. We have been at FAC several times over the past few months with various Millennium Park features and people have said get the FUs down to three or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cant put a number on the quantity of non-free items allowed in an article, obviously the Frank Zappa article has more sounds than this, as they are key to understanding there, and irrelevant here. I would refer to you my previous comment for the appropriate policy, and the particular clasue I have mentioned Fasach Nua (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really it comes down to his own opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have both read WP:NFCC several times. If you would refer to the previous FAC or look at the FARs for the images on their respective pages, reasoning is provided why all three images are essential to understanding the sculpture. --Torsodog^Talk 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No No I am agreeing with you, its Fasach whose just creates his own opinion on what is too much and then wars about it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you snuck in a response before me. That previous response was indeed supposed to be for Fasach Nua. --Torsodog^Talk 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose inappropriate use of images (Criteria 3), Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg and Image:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg do not contain significanly distinct information to allow them to be used together, and still meet the minimal use requirements of WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, after all of the work we did in the last FAC with the images, I'm actually pretty shocked the first oppose is because of WP:NFCC. Really, too bad. --Torsodog^Talk 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are views from completely opposite sides of the object. That in itself makes them about as different as they can be and contains information that cannot be seen in the other. -Djsasso (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the caption that made it clear why we needed both?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to move the text at the end of the first paragraph in history back to the caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see how that makes it anymore clear as to why both images are needed. I also think when you add the names of all the buildings to the caption it gets pretty big for just a caption; that was the reason I originally moved it. Honestly though, I'm pretty frustrated with this entire image issue and don't really mind what happens regarding them anymore. --Torsodog^Talk 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were not any complaints about the pair of lead images before with the old caption and now there are. That says something. Has Awadewit (talk · contribs) commented since we got the number of FU images down to his desired number. Also, JeremyA (talk · contribs) has been helpful on some image issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unindent The caption does help the justification, and I am reconsidering my oppose on that basis. Has the article been tried using a single non-free image of the sculpture, and free images of the two panoramas it is reflecting? Has any attempt been made to contact the artist to release images under a GFDL compatiable licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is not whether the photographer would release the images, but rather whether the sculptor would grant permission. There is a lengthy explanation on this issue in the Millennium Park article, but reproduction for commercial use of these images would not likely be granted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it (though I may be wrong), when the sculpture was commissioned the City of Chicago paid Anish Kapoor for an exclusive license to publish photographs of the sculpture. If that is true we are unlikely to be able to get permission from Kapoor to show photos of the sculpture under a free license. —Jeremy (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am going to revert the image caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that would be sufficient for user:Fasach Nua. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - source concerns resolved at last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images - I looked at the fair use rationales for the three views of the sculpture again. I am satisfied that they meet the NFCC criteria. The two exterior shots of the sculpture show the distinctive shape of the sculpture and how it reflects the buildings around it (I agree that this could be better described in the caption). The one interior shot doubles as an interior shot and as an "in process" shot, that is, it shows the sculpture being constructed - it shows the seams before the polishing of the sculpture. In my estimation, this is an acceptable use of fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what caption improvement you desire, but I made a minor change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems to be moving into Support territory, but I have questions about a few things. I would urge the nominators to avoid immediately deleting or changing something just because I (a FAC reviewer) mention it. However, if it makes sense, do it. :-)

I am turning the organization of some sections over in my mind, but the thing that jumps out immediately, in my mind, is the one-paragraph-long "AT&T Plaza" section. I'm not really sure that its contents need to beincluded in this article, even though obviously it is the location of the work.

We have forked the article and as part of a WP:GTC effort turned the forked article into a GA. You are probably right that the reader should just find out about it from the links if interested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does polished 98% mean? 98% of its surface was polished? Or is there some sort of polishing jargon referring to relative... what... degrees of polishedness? :-)

I do not know if this means 98% of the surface was polished or the entire surface was polished to 98% completion. I no longer have the original source. I am not sure if a Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking person would understand the meaning of this or not. I just added the project to the talk page of this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 5-step welding sentence and the subsequent table seem a little out of place in their current position, but am not sure where they might fit better. Will think.

I don't really see the problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:41, 1 October 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.