Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

Toolbox
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 WP:CHIFTD (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park is currently a WP:GT) now is only two FAs from a WP:FT after the third article passed yesterday. I think the next FAC has a good chance of passing, meaning that this article could take a topic from GT to FT if we can get some good feedback to clean it up.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (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.) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I am going to have to take a closer look at some of the content and sourcing in the article. I will get to it probably next week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long to review this, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would definitely put Millennium Park in the first sentence of the lead - this is one of the most prominent features of the park and the park should be in the first sentence.
  • The lead needs to be rewritten to be tighter and a better summary of the article. For example, these two sentences are needlessly repetitive It is the park's outdoor performing arts venue and the new home of the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra and Chorus. As home of the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra and Chorus it is also the home of [and] the Grant Park Music Festival, the nation's only remaining free outdoor classical music series. I also really dislike red links in the lead - could a stub be written?
  • The critical reception section is not mentioned in the lead - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Having seen a number of Millennium Park articles, the Critical reception section seems especially short - is there any chance it could be expanded?
    • It could be if there are architecture books that make commentary. These have been sourced with online references. I do not know of books that critique the structure, however. I will be on the lookout.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved a paragraph from elsewhere to this section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Design and development section seems too long - could it be divided into subsections?
    • I could use a lot of advice on structuring the content of the article. This is kind of one of the places where I hoped you might get involved in this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will come back to this tomorrow ... calling it a night

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know Chicago has an awesome skyline, but the mention of the skyscrapers in the first paragraph of the lead seems like boosterism to me - it is OK in the article, but is it really one of the most improtant things about the Pavilion?
  • I would also mention in the lead that the Pavilion shares backstage facilities with the Harris Theater (and not just that it is partly on top of it)
  • The Design and development section lacks a clear narrative thread - as noted above it might help to split this into two sections. Reading it more carefully, it looks like there could be a design part (including background) and perhaps a construction part (which would include physical descriptions of the facility as completed).
  • Design could include the first three paragraphs, as well as the paragraph starting with Grant Park has been protected by 172 years of "forever open, clear and free" legislation... and The original design was much more modest. These last two are currently a bit out of place surrounded by nuts and bolts details on the facility.
  • Construction could include the rest of the paragraphs - it might also be there is a better name, perhaps Construction and final design? Or Construction and structure?
  • The Events section might benefit from being in chroinological order - as it is we learn about rock concerts in 2007 and 2008, then the 2005 Tori Amos concert and admission controversy, then in a separate section, the Grant Park Music Festival. I assume the Music Festival has been there since 2004 when the park opened? If so, should it come first? I also think there should be a specific metnion of when the music festival opened in the Pavilion.
  • I also note there are a lot of events from 2007 listed, one from 2005, a few from 2008, but none from 2006 or 2009 which would be a problem at FAC (comprehensiveness)
  • I also think the paragraph on the Ptrillo Music Shell belongs in the Design section paired with the height restrictions / Monkey Ward law controversey perhaps.
    • As I look at it now, I think it belongs with the Amos stuff, although these two paragraphs might jointly be better in a separate "Controversies" section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do my best to copyedit this when it is more ready, but I do not have the time or resources to expand the critical reception or add more concert info.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - will try and copyedit the article and make needed comments here over the next few days. I have been busy with other things (including the new park image map). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could find a good shot of Gehry for this article like we have for Cloud Gate. The only thing I could find on flickr was http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericrichardson/134431119/ which isn't really FA-quality. I think his main image for his bio would be inappropriate here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The black and white photo of Gehry in his article is up for deletion on Commons, so I went ahead and uploaded your Flickr find on Commons as File:Frank Gehry 2006.jpg. Not sure if a crop of that would work / look better. I looked at the Commons category to see what all photos were available and found the five I stitched for the panorama (which I was bold and added). Is that OK? I plan to start the copyedit in the next few hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK< I cropped and uploaded it as File:Frank Gehry 2006 crop.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so enthused about that image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not very flattering either. Sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR - in the lead this is a problem sentence. It is the park's outdoor performing arts venue and the new home of the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra and Chorus and Grant Park Music Festival, the nation's only remaining free outdoor classical music series. First off I think it needs to make it clear to average reader that Millennium Park is part of the larger Grant Park. Second, it is an extraordinary claim, and as such needs a ref (I think). So how about something like Millennium Park is part of the larger Grant Park; the pavilion is the park's outdoor performing arts venue and the new home of the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra and Chorus and Grant Park Music Festival, the nation's only remaining free outdoor classical music series. ? Is that clearer? Otherwise the sentence mentions two things with Grant Park in the title, but does explain what Grant Park is or why a feature in MP is home to these GP things. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already made this change. It looks O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked above about pictures in the article - my initial impression is that there may be a few too many, and I would like it if there were a better lead image. Also not sure about Tori Amos (if it were an image of her performing on stage at the Pavilion that would be great). Also agree it would be great to have a gehry pic. Anyway, I usually get the text ironed out first, then look at the layout - if things get moved in a copyedit, then it makes more sense to wait to rearrange images until the c/e is done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will mention to Torsodog that you think we could use a better main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought that this article needed a better main image for awhile now, but I never got around to taking a stab at it. I'll try to go out this weekend and grab one during the day. Any suggestions? Also, I agree with the statement that this article is a bit heavy on images at the moment. --TorsodogTalk 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been there, so the question for me is what view is most iconic? Is it the view from the Great Lawn with the trellis and bandshell? Or would a side view work better? Look on Commons and see what is there and see if you think any of those images might work. I found a "new" panorama on Commons (add anything with Pritzker Pavilion in the text to the cat): File:Pano-chicago.jpg and like it better than the one I just stitched. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you are right, we might be able to just use a commons photo. I think File:Jay Pritz Pavilion.jpg is a great choice. Also, I like the new panorama a lot better. I had been wanting to take that exact picture for awhile now, but I'm glad we've got one already. --TorsodogTalk 05:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like File:Jay Pritz Pavilion.jpg too - you can see the bandshell clearly and tell it is by Gehry, see some view of the trellis and lawn, even get an idea of the skyline behind (without showing all the very tall buildings and losing the bandshell in the big skyline). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have some other pictures you like from this summer. I will try to upload them over the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great - look forward to it (have been busy with an FAC today, sorry not to do anyhting here). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day.JPG and File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day (2).JPG.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the first one, thanks (the other is fine too). I think we could use the first as the lead image, but would probably crop it a bit to "zoom in" on the bandshell and remove the people in the closest row at bottom (I found them distracting). I really like the sheer number of people too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are just talking about the woman facing away from the stage. I found her distracting as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and cropped it and swapped it out as the lead image (for the uncropped version you already put in). Off to copyedit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has several perspectives of the Pavilion. What do you think of these from Nichols Bridgeway and the Art Institute of Chicago Modern Wing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seoultrain/3698820994/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clairehelene7/3767134402/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iiskra/3562650891/

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Pritzker Pavilion from lawn.jpg now redundant with the panorama at the bottom and do you want the background skyscrapers named on the Panorama. About a dozen important buildings with articles are visible in the background.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested re-licensing of http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozmodiar/46997438/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/opal-in-the-rough/39385284/ but no responses yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the labels is OK. While the photo may be redundant now, can we wait until the copyedit is done and then figure out which images should be in or not? I think either Tori Amos photo would be good (in place of the current one), but really like the first one you've asked permission for.
I have added building names to the caption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I removed this phrase for now from the "Design and development" section's first paragraph: directly across from some of the tallest buildings in the world - is there a ref for this? Where else could it go? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the buildings in the caption. Especially the to Prudential Center buildings and Aon Center directly across the street. The reference is not considered a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims need refs. It is an impressive skyline (the photo tells us that), but the photo cannot tell us if the buildings are "some of the worlds tallest" (and I seem to recall some of them aren't even in the top 30 in the United States). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following buildings in the photo are listed at List of tallest buildings in the United States: Aon Center (Chicago), Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) (in the distant background), Two Prudential Plaza , Aqua (skyscraper), Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, and One Prudential Plaza.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even 340 on the Park would be a tall building in most skylines although it is dwarfed among the goliaths mentioned previously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sentence "The construction commenced with the pouring of concrete walls to support the pavilion's roof ..." - no one builds a building like this without foundations before the walls. Also is there a date for this? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am summarizing a book by the construction team. You oould preface it by According to... No date included, as I recall.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, how about Construction commenced and workers were soon pouring the concrete walls to support the pavilion's roof...? I moved a fair amount of stuff around - does it look OK so far? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about the glass doors. The article says "the orchestra shell space, which is 100 feet (30 m) wide, 50 feet (15 m) tall and support column-free.[15]" It appears from the photos that the glass doors are essentially the south wall of this space, but this now reads the "glass doors of the proscenium, which are about 50 feet (15 m) wide, 100 feet (30 m) tall and function like aircraft hangar doors made of glass.[22]" I do not understand how a space 50 feet high can have a door (made of glass or not) that is 100 feet high. If the ceilings in a house are 8 feet tall, the door to the house isn't 16 feet tall (mre like 7 feet tall). I need to sort out the stuff in the last paragraph of Construction, but am calling it a night.

I do think that File:20070919 Pritzker Pavilion bandshell.JPG might make a good photo for the Construction section - it clearly shows the glass doors, the trellis arches and the stainless steel curves, all of which are described here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there are four glass doors that are taller than they are wide from that picture. Let me know if I have to go back and review my original sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the glass doors are made of four subdoors and that the subdoors are about twice as tall as they are wide. My guess is that four subdoors together measure 50 feet tall by 100 feet wide, which would make each subdoor about 50 feet tall and 25 feet wide. If you look at File:20070919_Pritzker_Pavilion_bandshell.JPG there is person behind the door in the lower left corner. Assuming the person is between 5 and 6 feet tall, that would make the door about 50 feet tall over all (the structure of the door is visible and the subdoors are each 5 cells tall by 5 cells wide, the person is a bit over half a cell tall, which makes each cell about 10 feet tall and about 5 feet wide). We also learn in the article that the tallest point on the pavilion is about 150 feet above the ground. Looking at File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day crop.JPG we can see that the proscenium opening is about 1/3 the height of the tallest point, so again this matches a door that is 50 feet tall.
One suggestion would be just to say that the door is overall 100 by 50 feet (drop width and height). The other would be to double check the original sources for the heights and widths, but I do not want to make extra work for you. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy enough for me to revisit the source. I just have to get to the library. I'll just have to move this to 2nd or 3rd in my FAC queue, if it is not at my local lib, causing me to go downtown. Your rough estimates seem solid, but let me revisit the sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys still workin hard on this puppy. Good to see. I do have a couple of comments about the images thus far. I think that there doesn't need to be 3 different aerial views of the pavilion—one is really enough IMO. I also think that a map of millennium park AND a map of the loop is unnecessary. The loop map doesn't really need to be in this article. If readers are interested in where the park is specifically, the Millennium Park article can help them out. --TorsodogTalk 05:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think BP Pedestrian Bridge at one point had three arials and it was cut to two. I don't have a problem with that. I was just preserving the images. I think all three help the reader. I prefer more to less, but will let the image guys do their thing. As far as the map goes. I just saw it in another article and thought it would add perspective. It can stay or go. I like more images than most people, so I am learning to deal with images being removed that I would prefer to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I am done copyediting, I want to look at the images carefully and see if they illustrate all the points raised. I agree that the article seems a bit image heavy right now, but the only MOS problem I see right now is that the Acoustics section currently has an image sandwich. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How tall is this? In the COnstruction section it says the higest point is about 150 feet tall: The apex of the center element is approximately 150 feet (46 m) high, which was near the limits of basic construction equipment at the time.[26] However, later in the same section it is down to 120 feet It features a 120-foot (37 m) proscenium theatre with a brushed stainless steel headdress. Later in the Controversies section it is yet a different height, 139 feet: However, Crown Fountain and the 139-foot (42 m) Pritzker Pavilion were exempt from the height restriction because they were classified as works of art and not buildings or structures.[41] Any diea which of these is correct? Suggestions on how to deal with three different overall heights? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo ideas - as I am almost done with the copyedit, here are my thoughts on the images in the article. I agree with Torsodog that the second map does not add much, instead I would use File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg as the second image in the Design section (in place of the second Chicago map). In the Construction section, I would make File:20070919 Pritzker Pavilion bandshell.JPG the lead image, left justified (shows the stainless steel, stage and glass doors). I am not sure the other two aerial views are needed, but they could stay there right justified, with File:20070919 Pritzker Pavilion from stage.JPG at the bottom left justified (showing seats and trellis from stage). I would get rid of File:Pritzker Pavilion from lawn.jpg as the panorama shows much the same view. In Acoustics I would keep File:20070919 Pritzker Pavilion speakers.JPG but right justify it - this shows the speakers and different radii tubing from the trellis. The other photo currently there would be moved up in my plan, so the image sandwiching the text problem is gone. In the Controversies section, I would keep the beautiful Tori Amos photo at top, left justifed. I am tempted to crop it slightly, but I like to crop images. I would only keep one of the current two crowd shots, File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day (2).JPG, as it shows the crown and people sitting beyond the limits of the Great Lawn / trellis (mention this in caption as the section discusses it). Right justify this. The other crowd shot is decent, but the lead image already shows a crowd on the Great Lawn and I don't think this needs three crowd shots. I am not as sure what to do in the Events section - I have not copyedited there yet, but I will trim some repetition when I do and that will make the current image sandwich effect a bit worse. If we only kept two of the three images, I would keep the Decembrists and the Children's Choir. The "Pavilion form seats during a performance" image is a bit dark and the stage is small - if an image must be cut in this section, I would vote for it. I might also be that this would be the place to use a double image, perhaps the CHildren's CHoir and view from the seats. I would keep the nighttime shot in Reception, but make sure the right-left alternate justification continues (so if the Events is down to two images or two are together in a double image, left justify this). On the panorama, I wondered if asterisks could be added after the names of buildings that are in the 30 tallest in the US (with refs). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with pretty much all of these image suggestions. I've also been thinking that sometime next weekend I'll go out and grab a shot of the back of the Pavilion, as it's mentioned in the "Reception" section. Maybe it will be worth putting in? Also, File:Andrew Bird at Pritzker.jpg is available for use in the "Events" section. I think the current third image should probably go, but I'm not sure if this picture is needed either. I could go either way on it. Finally, what do you guys think about the "Position in Chicago's skyline" image? I'm not too crazy about it, personally. --TorsodogTalk 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Andrew Bird image very much - good find. I had also thought an image showing the back of the pavilion would be useful, but was hesitant to ask yet again for a picture. Also not sure where to put it. As for the "Position in Chicago's skyline" image, I just assumed it was in every article for the buildings in it. Not my favorite but OK with it in there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like images, so I would overdo it if I had my way. I concede to all your image suggestions. I am going to visit my local library on Wed. If they don't have the book, I will get downtown at some point. I guess this is no rush. I want to renom Trump Tower Chicago after my current nomination is completed. We are probably about a month away from nominating this. I also would like to get Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) to revisit his comments, but don't want to pester him too much. Maybe before I do, you should look at how I attempted to respond to his concerns. P.S. in the events, I think Amos and the Decemberists are must keep. You could swap in Andrew Bird or do some {{multiple image}} templates. Your choice. I would do multiple image, but I like images too much to make the call.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I switched it over to just 50 by 100 feet for now (not saying which is height or width). I just need to to copyedit the critical reception section and I'll be done (though reading the refs I found a bit on the foundations to add to the Construction section too). Did you see the three different heights question above? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the two alternative views commented as "I am not sure the other two aerial views are needed, but they could stay there right justified" were going to stay. Clearly the statement left room to go either way. I kind of miss the view from Willis Tower, which I think is a high quality shot and adds perspective. I personally also like the other one that shows the Pavilion in the context of the city backdrop. I don't miss anything else and look forward to a picture of the back of the Pavilion. Yes I noticed the three different heights. I have not looked closely at their sourcing to see how many were from the library and how many were online. I expect to do so before going to library or while at library tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys feel strongly about the other aerial views, feel free to add them back in. However, I really don't see what they add that the image in the article doesn't already. Also, I thought that this extra image space will come in handy when we finally grab a shot of the back of the pavilion. --TorsodogTalk 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK either way with the other aerial views - at least one of them would be nice to have a side view of the the whole thing. The 120 feet is in the official Millennium Park Pritzker Pavilion website. The other two heights are books, so I could not check them. I can see that it would be difficult to agree on a height - the curls vary. It could be that 120 feet is the official height, but a metal curl or two stick up above this. It oculd also be that 139 feet and about 150 feet are essentially the same (to use a crane to put something in place, you have to be able to go above where it will end up and lower it, so to put in something 139 feet tall, I can see needing a crane that goes to about 150 feet). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems with File:20090814 Pritzker Pavilion on Beethoven's 9th Day (2).JPG at commons. I have tried to crop it and I keep seeing versions with the undesirablesections remaining. You can see from the thumbnails what I am trying to do. I have tried to reload my cache, but it is not working. are you seeing the plants on the right?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I was on Commons mostly the past few days. Have you tried WP:BYC? Another trick is to force it to redraw the image - if it is 300 px wide, making it 301 or 299 will often work in forcing the new version to show up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I have tried bypassing the cache. I am not sure what you mean about the 301 thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, I looked at both versions and just now I looked at the article and the cropped version (less on the right) is showing up. I forgot it was thumb width, but if you set it to a width that is different than your specified thumb width, it will force the servers to get the latest version of the image and redraw it to the new size. For what it is worth, the old base map (smaller text) still shows up for me on this article. Not sure why. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Set it to a different width how? on commons?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I reset the width on the page here. Which version do you see now? On Commons try clicking on the current thumbnail at the bottom and see what version shows up - for me it is the cropped version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139 s/b 130 (typo on my part). Gilfoyle's book carefully diagrams the height from the elevation where pedestrians walk to the top of the highest point in the structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sharoff book actually says "The highest point of the center element is close to 150" so it gives no exact measurement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stage could be elevated 10 feet from grade level accounting for the 10 foot difference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Yes 50 feet high by 100 feet wide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to revise per sources or do you want me to do it. I was kind of just staying out of the article while you copyedit it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for checking these. I see the 130 feet and about 150 feet were already there. I just changed the doors back to 50 feet tall and 100 feet wide. I only have to finish the Reception section and will be done with my copyedit, but was waiting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should finish the copyedit in the next 24 hours, about to call it a night. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Fodor's review says . There's the Grant Park Music Festival—a free classical-music series—as well as the city's popular free summer concerts, including the jam-packed Chicago Blues and Chicago Jazz festivals. Should the Blues and Jazz Festivals be added to the article? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Chicago Blues Festival and Chicago Jazz Festival have articles they should be included in this article and this article should be included in them. Although the Chicago Gospel Music Festival and Chicago Latin Music Festival do not have articles, they might also be mentioned if they are held here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will troll the newsbank archives a bit starting tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added the Blues and Jazz Festivals and used the Fodor's ref that was already in. I believe that I am done with the copyedit, although I have now worked on it so much that I am losing my critical distance and might have missed some things. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fodor's seems to be wrong. I will be correcting the events section and adding some details. Stay tuned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried adding some things. Please use your judgment on what should be refined.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will think about it and copyedit the new material. I am not sure that the Fodor's error should be in the main text - perhaps it could be a note or in the ref? I also am not sure why the price for the Death Cab for Cutie show is included per WP:NOT. However, I realized I am not sure if admission is charged for most showd or not. I think the price is not needed in any case, but if this only the second show to charge for lawn seating....?? Not sure why this is there now Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, I am kind of stuck awaiting feedback - my strong preference is to note the Fodor's error either in a footnote or as part of the Fodor's ref itself. I am also not sure why the DCFC ticket prices need to be included (and the concert is already in there). I read the refs and can see a sentence that says something like "Most events in the pavilion are free, for example in the summer of 2008 only the Death Cab for Cutie concert charged admission." Does that sound OK? I see you have started an article on the Petrillo Music Shell - thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this got deleted from my watchlist. I agree with your changes. I think this is pretty much ready for a shot at FAC. It is 2nd in my queue after Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still hoping for Torsodog's picture of the back of the Pavilion. Also, I think we could readd a side aerial view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a few pictures of the back yesterday, but didn't get a chance to mess with them and upload yet. I'll try to get that done tonight. --TorsodogTalk 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out - after edit conflict) I think I am done with the copyedit and would be OK with this going to FAC soon. I would feel better if non-involved copyeditor at least proof-read this (as I have been working on it enought that I have lost some of my critical distance and so fear there may still be rough spots I am missing). I would be fine with adding the photo of the back and an aerial side view. I have two more ideas / suggestions that might be implemented.

  1. I still think that the buildings visible in the bottom panorama that are among the tallest in the United States could indicated with an asterisk in the caption, and at the end of the caption the asterisks could be explained ( Among the buildings pictured in the background are (left to right) The Heritage, Smurfit-Stone Building, Trump International Hotel and Tower*, One Prudential Plaza*, Two Prudential Plaza*, Aon Center*, Aqua*, Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower*, 340 on the Park, The Buckingham, 400 East Randolph, and Harbor Point. Buildings marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the List of tallest buildings in the United States.) Obviously refs are needed for these claims. On further thought, could a minimum height be selected instead? so Buildings marked with a asterisk (*) are over 700 feet (210 m) tall. (or whatever height works). Refs still would be needed.
    I am not against this technique. Have you seen it used elsewhere. What do you think would be needed refwise? I think the asterisk would be sufficient, except that we would have to watch the list as taller buildings get added and shorter ones get removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not seen it used elsewhere. If it were a simple height criterion (say talller than 700 feet) then it would not have to be updated unless the photo was (new buildings). Also the refs would be simpler (just need to show the building is above the height limit). I picked 700 feet somewhat arbitrarily - what height would be needed to include the buildings now listed with an asterisk? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If there is some critical review of the acoustics out there, that could be added to the Reception section.
    I think that type of critical review would be in periodicals not at my fingertips if it exists at all. I have exhausted my sources, unless a google book search would have results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then Reception is done. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I think we are done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one last suggestion: I browsed through the article and didn't see any mention of the Pavilion's restrooms. There are two staircases on either side of the great lawn that lead downwards and eventually connect underneath the lawn/pavilion. There are a few restrooms in this hallway. I think this might be worth mentioning somewhere if we can find a ref that mentions it (if this is in the article somewhere and I just missed it, pretend I didn't say anything at all). Otherwise great job, guys! --TorsodogTalk 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have knowledge of these restrooms being significant. I have not seen them mentioned anywhere?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere either, actually. I always thought that was odd though, considering they are basically the only public bathrooms in all of Millennium Park. If there is no mention of them in the sources though, don't worry about it. --TorsodogTalk 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the McDonald's Cycle Center, Exelon Pavilions and Harris Theater not have public restrooms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in the article but the official MP FAQ mentions them - they are accessible and McCormick has one too. Could add a mention in the accessibility section - FAQ is already a ref. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This info belongs in the Millennium Park article (as well as here and at McCormick).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the restroom here at McCormick and at the general park article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you guys a heads up, I finally uploaded the pics I took of the back to the commons. Unfortunately it was a terrible day on Sunday and the lighting is pretty bad, but they do the job. I'll probably re-take them sometime when the skies are nice and blue. --TorsodogTalk 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they. I would like to see what they look like and I think we could put the temporary version in the article to figure out spacing and enable us to consider the other aerial shots. You could swap them out later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on Commons, I believe they are these three - all are good, thanks Torsodog. File:Pritzker pavilion east back far.jpg (my favorite I think), File:Pritzker pavilion east back close.jpg (second choice I think), and File:Pritzker Pavilion back west.JPG. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are we trying to show about the back of the pavilion. I thought we were going to show that it is behind and atop Harris Theater (Chicago). I can not identify Harris in any of these photos.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess we never really talked about the purpose of these rear images, did we? I didn't know you were looking for a picture with the Harris. Doesn't the overhead picture from the Aon kind of illustrate that point? I had this quote in mind when I was taking the pictures: "the supporting backside along Randolph Street is controversial, and some observers found the exposed supporting proscenium braces offensive." --TorsodogTalk 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. For that purpose the image is excellent and useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what do you guys think of getting rid of the references in the lead? Only a couple of things are referenced there anyways, and they are all incorporated in the body of the article, I believe. --TorsodogTalk 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the caption to try and point out the Harris Theter in the first aerial view (from Aon) and tweaked the sitting on the grass outside the pavilion caption to better reflect the controversy. I added in two more images and rearranged the images so they are still right left. It seems a bit image heavy to me. I like the second aerial view (looking SW) when it is full size, but in the article it is hard to see much detail. Not sure it is needed. I am also starting to wonder if the Children's Choir image could be removed - as it is there are five images of performances (Amos, Decembrists, Bird, Childrens Choir, even the lead image from a distance). The Bird image also shows part of the stage and looks better larger too, which it could be if we got rid of the CHildren's choir shot. WHat do you think? I prefer no refs in the lead, but know Tony likes them, so either way is OK with me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Millennium Park from Sears Tower.jpg shows the pavilion atop the theater better than the one with the caption about this. Maybe a side by side would be O.K. there. I don't have a problem with the Children's Choir image being in or out, but don't think any images really need to be removed given the current spacing. I would be fine taking out LEAD refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped out the aerial views and agree it looks much better - thanks. I also tried putting the Andrew Bird image as the lead in the Events section and moved the Children's Choir to the double stack. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I added the toolbox in the top right corner - for FAC this will need:

  1. the two dab links fixed,
  2. at least one dead external link / ref fixed,
    Refs fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. alt text, per WP:ALT. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing the refs - anyone want to work on alt text or should I add it to my list? Are the pictures / layout OK as is now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot about the ALT. I may get to it, but if I don't by the time I take it to FAC, they will make me do it, so it will surely get done in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. When are you planning on taking this to FAC? I can close this PR as needed, just let me know. Can also work on ALT text, just did not want to step on anyone's toes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still 2nd in my queue after Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). However, the current nominee Cato June only has two supports and may be restarted later this week if it doesn't another one or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Just looked at Template:Infobox Theatre and cannot find the alt text parameter. Am I just missing it or should we ask Eubulides to add it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Alternative_text_for_images#Template:Infobox_Theatre.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been adjusted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will try to add some alt text in the next few hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added alt text in the infobox - not sure how to add it to an image map. I will ask Eubulides. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added alt text to the first seven images. I am not great at alt text - does it look OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text looks O.K. to me, but I would check with Eubulides when you are finished.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion/archive1&oldid=1136085144"