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 SandyGeorgia 01:17, 16 July 2010 [1].

Millennium Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park needs one more WP:FA to meet the impending September 1 new policy requiring 50% of the articles to be featured to retain WP:FT status. It will be demoted to WP:GT if it does not meet the upcoming standard. Additionally, depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park/addition2 it may need two FAs to meet the September standard. This article was recently expanded by merging in content from many of the topics other FAs.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park/addition2 has closed with consensus to promote, meaning that this topic now needs two more FAs by September 1 to retain FT status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media What efforts were made to have a free alternative of File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg released by the copyright owner? Fasach Nua (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any, but I will check with the parties on the file description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in February 2010 when the Cloud Gate article was scheduled to appear on the Main Page as a TFA, I emailed Anish Kapoor (the sculptor) asking for permission to relicense one photo of Cloud Gate as a free image for use on the Main Page. I never received any reply - see Talk:Cloud_Gate#Main_page_image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since photographs of sculptures are derivative works, I think the only way a photo of one can be freely licensed is if the original sculpture is so licensed as well. So, I don't think a free image could be obtained in any event without Kapoor relicensing the sculpture to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership of copyrighted component of the derived work will be the property of the owner of the copyright of the original work, and they can re-license it as they choose Fasach Nua (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links; dead external links to

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_92/ai_n7576767

http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=%22Cloud%20Gate%22%20Chicago&y=0&aje=true&x=0&id=040720000796&ct=0

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Mayors+Office%2fJuly%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-536882034&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Mayors+Office&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=536911872&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

http://millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/luriegarden/plantlife/

http://www.exeloncorp.com/aboutus/news/pressrelease/corporate/Press+Release+121505a.htm

http://www.pbcchicago.com/subhtml/millennium_park.asp

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/programs/specials/millpark.asp

http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/illinois/chicago/review-111571.html is labeled "Millennium Park" but the page linked is about Chicago in general;

https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2005/050128/WORKS&search= is timing out. Also, several external links appear several times (for example, a FAQ page from the City of Chicago about Millennium Park is linked three times). Ucucha 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get a report of refs appearing multiple times. I have taken care of all the Chicago Tribune articles linked twice, but with over 250 refs I missed a few others I am sure. You will note I copied large chunks of reffed text from the other FAs in the topic who all probably had some overlap on refs that they used.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some on your talk page. I'm not aware of any other easy way to check for links that appear multiple times. Ucucha 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all the duplicate refs. I will get to the dead links above later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, as an experienced FAC participant, it would be helpful and appreciated if you would check these routine bookkeeping items before submitting a nomination-- unprepared FACs add a load on reviewers and contribute to the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written article which I think addresses each component of the park in turn very well and then analyses critically. Well illustrated with freely useable images. Looks FA standard to me. Well done to the article developer/s. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns: some expert needs to judge if the following images have proper licenses OR should they have a fair use rationale and be marked with {{Non-free 3D art}}. Does commons:template:FoP-US (from commons) apply?

• File:Gehry Pritzker.JPG
  • I added FoP-US.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this one be moved from commons so we can tag this as Non-free 3D art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Comments:-

• Notes
  • Consistency required in formatting of page ranges. For example, you have "120–122" in ref. 80 and "490–91" in 230.
    • Can I request assistance from someone who knows how to use AWB to do this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, maybe, but as 230 was the only instance, I fixed it by hand. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval date formats are not consistent. One style used up to ref 78, after which there is a change to a different style.
    • Is there a way to issue a global command to correct this or could someone using AWB do this in an automated manner?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would need to get admin advice on this. Or check the edit histories of your articles, and see who has used AWB. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, but could you fix the loss of capital R in 108 to 114? Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prominent newspapers such as The New Tork Times, The Economist, etc, do not need publisher details added: you have not done this for the Chicago papers or some others, e.g. The Boston Globe.
    • I have eliminated "publisher=[[Time Inc.]], publisher=[[The New York Times Company]]" I have left publisher=[[Crain Communications Inc.]]|work=Crain's Chicago Business and publisher=[[Hearst Communications Inc.]]|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] because neither of the latter is as redundant with the work.--64.134.196.129 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a guess, I'd say the correct publisher for Ref 156 is "City of Chicago"
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References list
    • What do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, this was just a mis-formatted subheading for the items following. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency required in giving publisher locations. Give either all, or none
    • O.K. removed the one that had a location to be consistent with the other refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sinkevitch page range unnecesary in this list.
    • I fail to see why we would hide this information from the reader if we have it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You wouldn't be hiding anything, the required page is given in the citation. It isn't necesary to also give page information in reference lists or bilblographies, as indeed you haven't with any other books. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Millennium_Park#view=0,1,1,1,1,1
  • You have a lot of sub domains that are incorrect and a couple of 404 errors.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no real problems in the refs. Those are just false error reports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.