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]

  • 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]
  • As I believe I said there, the community area information is an important descriptor. Look at the entire Chicago Daily News collection of images at the Library of Congress. Each image is described by its community area. That is how you tell someone where something in Chicago is located. If we want to give the reader an encyclopedic description of the location, following the Library of Congress format is not so bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you can find a way to incoporate all that information without making the prose awkward, let me know. Zagalejo^^^ 22:15, 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]
  • Yeah, I think you can do without it. I'll just concede the point with regards to the Loop. Zagalejo^^^ 22:42, 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]
  • Maybe, but you shouldn't give undue weight to minor issues just to have a controversy section. Zagalejo^^^ 22:42, 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]
  • I'm with Zagalejo here: it does seem remarkably trivial to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the section with an introduction to demonstrate an encyclopedic point for which this incident serves as a poignant example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 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]
  • In the themes section, you need to be more explicit that some of those statements are based on other people's opinions. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little better, but it will need some copyediting. There's very little organization within that paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 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]
  • The text already says "The concrete base and box girder are flanked by a hollow stainless steel skeleton". That paragraph describes things in detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's further up in the article. Readers might have forgotten that section. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to reword for clarity. Zagalejo^^^ 19:57, 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]
  • the word "them" that ends the contested sentence is a reference to seams by Gehry. Artistically, this contrast is quite interesting. It may be the most interesting thematic element of the work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 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]
  • I don't have the source, so I don't know exactly what Gilfoyle says. But I'll give it a shot. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried, but again, I don't have the Gilfoyle book at hand, so you should double-check to make sure I'm representing him correctly. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "man-made beauty" and "natural beauty" might be considered POV terms. Zagalejo^^^ 22:10, 23 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]
  • Eh... why is that something you have to present as Kamin's opinion? You can leave the "belvedere" part. Otherwise, the sentence has no punch. Zagalejo^^^ 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure of your desire. I just reverted the edit back to what it was before. If you want Kamin removed from the sentence it loses some degree of WP:ATT, but with the source it could be removed. Again, not sure what you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose ....

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.

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
Regards, dvdrw 07:47, 25 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.
More