- 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:20, 12 June 2010 [1].
Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
I am nominating this for featured article because the Millennium Park featured topic currently had 6 WP:FAs among its 15 articles. On September 1, the required FA proportion will be increasing from 1/3 to 1/2. Thus, the topic is in danger of being demoted from WP:FT to WP:GT if it does not get two more FAs before September 1. In addition Park Grill and Grant Park Music Festival are expected to be added to the topic as soon as Park Grill gets through its WP:PR and then a WP:GAC. Thus, the project is likely to need three more FAs before September 1. This is a high quality areticle that is very befitting of the FA designation and it would help the WP:CHICAGO project retain its only FT if it can get promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to find the last circular redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Tony for co-nominating me. I found and fixed the circular redirect (it was in the ((Chicago Theatre District)) template). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also having trouble getting the WP:ALT text tool to recognize the alt text in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to have it figured out now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Compass rose pale-50x50.png is tagged as free from copyright, however it is derived from copyrighted material Fasach Nua (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That template seems to be linked to about 8000 articles. Should we just remove the image or should there be a discussion? Also, are the other images O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explicitly say which copyrighted material / file it is derived from? When I follow the links, it appears to be derived from File:Reinel compass rose.svg which is a free image and a FP, and is itself based on a map image published in 1504 (so PD old). I am not seeing the copyrighted material and would appreciate a more explicit explanation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader of this image, Eubulides (talk · contribs), stopped editing without explanation on March 19 and it looks less likely each day that he'll ever be back; that's all I know. —Soap— 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ultimately a derivation from a 500-year old map; how exactly is that copyrighted? Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted Fasach Nua and asked for clarification. The answer was that the file it is derived from ( File:Compass rose pale.svg) was licensed GFDL, CC-BY-SA, while the file in question was licensed PD-self. I have changed the license accordingly - here for the talk page conversation and here for my edit to change the license. Thanks to Fasach Nua for the clarification, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts on that issue and all other concerns in this FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links (although I see that's been checked above). Dead external links to
Sources comments: Mainly minor fixes necessary:-
Ref 2 (and other NYT refs): It isn't necessary to give the NYT publisher - you have in some, not in others.
Ref 4: Chicago Tribune should be italicised
Ref 25: "Newsbank", not "newsbank"
Ref 45: Chicago Sun-Times should be italicised
Ref 50: It's not clear who the publishers are, or how the information reached from the link supports the cited sentence.
Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sources look pretty solid. So does the content. Good job. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support and kind words. As a general note, I am experiencing computer issues at home and may not be able to get online this weekend (from about 7 hours from now until Monday morning). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion on the locator map moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1 Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01
- 42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Binksternet
Why is the state Illinois in the title? The article should be moved to Harris Theater (Chicago).
- If I recall, it was formerly there and got moved here. Here is what the page log says:
09:12, 23 January 2010 Markhh (talk | contribs) moved Harris Theater (Chicago) to Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) (standard disambiguation for articles on U.S. theaters)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked Markhh to comment: User_talk:Markhh#Theater_article_title_format. He may have a good explanation, better than "standard disambiguation". Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the Chicago, Illinois. As if there is a Chicago in other states or something... It is also irritating when I search for a category e.g Theatres in Chicago and find it no longer exists and has not even been redirected to "Theatres in Chicago, Illinois. I find the ""Illinois" on the end of everything redundant. You never see for instance London referred to as London, England in every category. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some year ranges have four + four numerals, and others have four + two? For example: 2002–2003 versus 2008–09. Still others have apostrophes to stand in the place of the first two numerals: '03–'04, '04–'05, etc.
Why are some numbers larger than ten spelled out, and some are not? For example, there is 'seventy-fifth' in one place, and '75th' in another.
In some of Blair Kamin's newspaper articles, are the stars part of the article title, or do they establish a new line or section? It doesn't seem to me that stars should be in the article title. Kamin has other such news item titles (with stars) in the Millennium Park article. If the stars go, the subsequent address or location description should go as well.
- I believe that if you traced down microfilm of these articles the title would include a star character instead of the words that you see here. However, in the databases that we are using the word star replaces the character. I think this is correct as presented, but I could be convinced otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is not about the words swapped in for stars, it is about having stars (or words saying star star star) in the title. I don't think the stars were intended by Kamin to be part of the title. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that the Title ends before the stars. here as an alternate source for the same article in which the stars seem like subtitles, which I often include in citations. I am now tempted to change the asterisks back to prose (star)s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am suggesting that the article title is "Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance" and that the "**" or "(star) (star)" is the beginning of an unneeded subtitle, followed by the address. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My standard convention for titles in citations in every article I have written on WP is to include the subtitle, with a colon between the title and the subtitle. I have never been told that this is wrong or pointed to any MOS on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence which starts "The seats are maplewood, carpeting and walls..." should probably have a semicolon following 'maplewood' so that the reader does not think the seats are also composed of carpeting and walls.
The phrase "as a result" is in two consecutive sentences. Clunky.
Some of the accessdate parameters give a three-digit year: 201
Why is there a difference between the article body and the reference section in terms of date formatting? The body uses mdy, spelling out the month, and the references use ymd with numeral month. (Except for the MPNYT cite.)
- Does someone know how to use AWB or something to fix this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but my understanding was that the dates had to be consistent in sections (within the article, within the references) but could be two different styles in two different sections. I note that Wikipedia:MOS#Dates says in part "Dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD (like 1976-05-13) are uncommon in English prose and are generally not used in article prose. However, they may be useful in long lists, references, and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." If you still want this to be changed, please say so and I will make the reference date changes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthetical aside "($4,750 plus the expense of stagehands in 2008)" should probably put "in 2008" after the dollar figure, not after the stagehands, whose unstated expense does not need to be modified by what year was under discussion.
The table containing attendance, music and dance figures has these words below it: "Source: Chicago Tribune". In my browser window, the word "Source" directly follows the article body line ending "...a dozen music and dance groups. The twelve...", yielding (from their proximity) an apparent line reading "...a dozen music and dance groups. The twelve Source: Chicago Tribune." Is there a way that a border can be thrown around the table so that it stands further apart from the article body text? Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That helps, but I still think there might be a way to throw a little empty border around the table. I don't know how. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the table so the source is within the borders (at least in IE 8). Is this what you wanted? Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a margin one em wide to the left and below the table, after asking the missus for advice (she's the expert HTML whiz of the house.) Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the helpful comments and adding the margin to the table, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced, good photographs. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support - note that I have moved this to a more appropriate place in the article chronologically. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment - Concise and well-written. Nice images, too. Some minor comments:
“The theater is the culmination of 'years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders' including groups like Music of the Baroque which are now residents in the venue.” Does Music of the Baroque operate out of the facility or just perform there? And is it only them? Perhaps “groups like Music of the Baroque, which now performs there.”
- Thanks for your comments - my understanding is that Music of the Baroque performs there regularly, but has its own headquarters elsewhere - see their official history online. Will respond to your other points tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders", including groups like Music of the Baroque which now perform there regularly. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The plan also resulted in the extension of Chicago’s performing arts district east to Lake Michigan … " East from where?
- My impression is that the performing arts district was in the Loop west of Michigan Avenue before, but will let Tony answer this for sure. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be out of place to say that, for those who may not have that context? -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, the sentence has been changed to "The plan also extended Chicago’s performing arts district, which had been predominantly west of Michigan Avenue, east towards Lake Michigan, and linked it more with the Museum Campus and Michigan Avenue cultural institutions.[9][10]" - hopefully this is clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The Harris Theater is a privately owned institution serving mostly local mid-size non-profit arts companies and projects, including those sponsoring touring artists such as Old Town School of Folk Music … “ Also reads oddly. Is Old Town School a sponsor? Perhaps “including those, like Old Town School of Folk Music, who sponsor touring artists.”
- Thanks for the catch, used your wording (with which for who). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The MacArthur Foundation enables numerous performing arts groups to have an artistic home base at the theater, where they share hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants.” Can this be clarified? Is it the grants that do the enabling, or is there more to their support?
- As I understand it the Theater serves as a performing venue that has costs. I imagine the grant funds stage hands and clean up crews. The theater makes it possible for all the small groups to share the cost of such functions at a wholesale rate and the Foundation probably picks up a lot of these costs through their grants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, but might be a bit unclear. Maybe something as simple as "The MacArthur Foundation funds numerous performing arts groups, enabling them to have an artistic home ..." -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the sentence to " For example, in 2009 the MacArthur Foundation gave the theater $150,000 over three years "in support of a subsidized usage program for smaller arts organizations".[43][33][44]" and added a ref to the foundation's report on the grant. I thought a direct quote on a specific example might be clearer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2009–10, the theater introduced a pair of discounted ticket programs." Is the “pair of” required? It makes it seem like they need describing.
- I believe you are correct. Apologies. -Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“By providing a regular performing venue, the Harris Theater has also raised the profile of dance in Chicago.” Strictly speaking, the source says it has raised the profile of local dance groups. That seems like a different claim.
- I am not sure I understand the point of this hairsplitting. If dance groups who perform dance have a higher profile, performance dance has a higher profile.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible to raise the profile of a few small companies without necessarily doing anything for profile of dance in a place like Chicago -- that would be a much bigger deal. That is how I read it. The theater benefited the dance companies, certainly, and that was all the was being claimed. Is that hairsplitting? -Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to a brief direct quote from the Frommer's guide: "By providing a regular performing venue, the Harris Theater has also "raised the profile of local dance groups" in Chicago.[38]". Thanks for clarifying the distinction, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the External links be pared down? The map links mostly duplicate the maps already here. The archive links take you to mostly program announcements and reviews rather than information about the theater. The calendar info is available at the official website (already linked). And the Twitter link just seems out of place here.
- I removed the Loop map as it does not even show the theater, the Twitter link as it can be reached from the theater's official website (which is linked), and the calendar info link. I kept the official Millennium Park map link (it also includes a brief description of all the features in the park), the official theater website, and the newspaper article archives, for 4 ELs. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stricken, I'm neutral now. Thanks Tony and Ruhrfisch for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose by Karanacs.[reply]
I'm concerned that the lead includes information about who performed in the last two years - this seems like it will need to be updated yearly, leading to a longer lead. Can we perhaps just mention something along the lines of "Performances through this series have included ..." with two names?
- I used your suggestion and included the San Francisco Ballet and Baryshnikov as they seemed the biggest two names (if it were three names I would add Sondheim). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is a theater for dance and music, I added Sondheim - other names were both dance. If three is too many, please say which dance name to remove. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is proscenium?
"as a less than ideal venue for jazz groups because of its cost and size." - this is ambiguous. Is it that the size is bad for the sound of the jazz, or that jazz groups can't attract as large an audience? And how does cost factor into this? I know the full explanation is in the body, but the lead needs to make a little more sense
- I tweaked this in the lead and used the word "cavernous" from the source in the body to express how the theater is seen as too large for jazz by some. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much clearer now, but the sentence is now a bit wordy and repetitive - it uses "venue" three times. Any way to reword it to be a bit more concise? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is somewhat repetitive. Example: both the second and third paragraphs essentially begin with a sentence telling us that the theater was built for local music/dance organizations.
- Is there any more background from the MacArthur Foundation study which would be useful here? It might be nice to know what options were available for performing arts in pre-1990 Chicago and why they were inadequate.
- There are two sentences on the study on the Harris Theater's website's History section; the information from them is parahrased in the article already. The MacArthur Foundation does not have the study online and I have not found it online searching. So much as I agree it would be interesting to know more details, they are not readily available. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that the study isn't available we can't have info on it. However, can we find anything elsewhere about the state of performing arts in Chicago pre-1990? Anything from the newspaper? When the theater was announced, were there newspaper/magazine articles that delved into why it was being built? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just emailed the MacArthur Foundation asking for a copy of the study. Looking at Google News, I found a fair number of articles that detailed the various proposed plans for the Music and Dance theater after 1990 (it took over a decade before construction started - there were lots of changes in plans and proposed locations before they settled on Millennium Park). I do not think that this article needs to go into all the possible sites, etc. I did not find any pre-1990 articles, but I did find this 1993 article from the Tribune "No room to dance Shrinking performance space tests ingenuity of top troupes". I only read the abstract, but it points out how dependent dance troupes without "homes" were on finding performance space, and how the haves protected their own interests first (Lyric Opera (LO) made one theater into rehearsal and storage space, which removed it from the pool for itinerant troupes; LO's home theater was being renovated when LO was not using it - no problem for LO, but big trouble for other users). The Music of the Baroque homepage's history also goes into some detail how they used to perform only in churces- the Harris Theater gave them a more secure and performer friendly space they could count on. Not sure if this is OR or SYNTH. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be O.K. to add something about this squeeze on the homeless troupes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the kind of information I was hoping could be found. Something along the lines of "The Chicago Tribune reported that ...." followed by "In 1990, a study by the foundation also identified a similar issue..." Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have added the 1993 "No room to dance" story to the section and as a ref and have rewritten the first few sentences to make it all flow (hopefully). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders" including groups like Music of the Baroque, which now perform there regularly - does this mean that there were committees to determine how to build this theater, or that there were committees to determine that a theater was needed? Are there any more details on the plan and how it was developed?
- I tweaked the sentence to show it was a committee to determine how to build the theater, but do not have any more details - sorry. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing a change, did this get lost? Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it from "The theater is the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders" including groups like Music of the Baroque, which now perform there regularly." to "Once the need was identified, the theater was the culmination of "years of planning by Chicago’s philanthropic, arts, business and government leaders"..." Here is the diff. I can try and change it more, if needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a few more details on the Montgomery Ward height restrictions?
- Tony may have more on this, and has access to the books used (I do not). It may be that the books have more details on the two questions directly above too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The adjacent Jay Pritzker Pavilion is classified as a work of art (and not a structure) to avoid the restrictions. Is that worth including? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be... Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Macaluso book has the most detail that I recall. I don't currently have that book but I might be able to get it and I spend a lot of time online at Borders and they may have it. I will check this afternoon when I pass by there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Today I found more details in the Gilfoyle book.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony added a fair amount more on the background of the height restrictions, and I just added the pavilion as artwork dodge. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good information, but perhaps it can be summarized or massaged a little more. Also, is there information on what the actual height restrictions are? Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to know the details of the other Harris donations?
- I presume you are suggesting cutting down "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy: in 1993 they gave $7 million ($10.5 million in current dollars) to fund the Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall at the Aspen Music Festival and School in Aspen, Colorado,[21] and they were the primary benefactors of the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago, and several other causes for the arts and youth,[2][20]". Do you want it to be totally eliminated, cut to just the first phrase of "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy" or could we include something like "The Harrises have a history of philanthropy for institutions such as Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall at the Aspen Music Festival and School in Aspen, Colorado and the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think something short along the lines of "The Harrises had a long history of philanthropy benefitting the arts." would be sufficient. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the three pictures wedged together in the beginning of the Architecture section. They are small, which to my poor eyesight then appears as just a bunch of lines - I had to click on the leftmost and center pictures and open them up full size to understand what they were supposed to be. Furthermore, I don't think the pictures add that much to the article. At the very least, I'd get rid of the one on the left. Perhaps either the middle or rightmost could stay and be made a bit bigger so that we can see them (both is probably overkill)?
- I removed the leftmost image and made the two remining images larger. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's much better - I can see them! I still think two is overkill, though. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Pritzker Pavilion, which has the benefit that Millennium Park's indoor and outdoor performance venues share a loading dock, rehearsal - now we're assuming that readers know that the Paviliion is the outdoor performance venue. Perhaps this sentence could be restructured a bit. Also, was the theater built first, or was the pavilion? which takes advantage of the other's effort?
- The park was a unified effort by one planner. I don't know that either is taking advantage of the other. However, I have clarified their respective roles in the LEAD so that it is not sudden information at this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked the sentences on Jay Pritzker Pavilion to make it clearer that they were built at about the same time (JPP 1999-2004, HT 2002-2003) and some other tweaks. Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you - both changes are useful. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got lost in the paragraph that's full of numbers. Perhaps this would be better served in a table (replacing the phot of random performers on stage - which could be any stage anywhere).
- I am not sure which paragraph you are referring to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the third paragraph of the Architecture section was meant originally. I tried to fix it but moving some of the figures / numbers to a caption, removing one figure (the height of proscenium), combining two (the stage height and depth are the same, and reorganized the remaining numbers to try and make them flow better / be grouped together better. Is this OK? Apologies as I think this was lost due to my internet issues. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is an opinion - The theater's sightlines and acoustics provide "an unusually modern and stainless-steel bolstered environment" for experiencing performances, can it please be attributed in the text?
Lots of repetitive phrasing in the first paragraph of Local performers. "When the theater opened...dozen groups" followed immediately by "The twelve are" and then "When the Harris Theater opened." Can this be reworked a bit?
- Good catch - comboned the first two sentences and worked on the one discussed below too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence needs work When the Harris Theater opened in 2003, it provided a goal for aspiring small dance companies like Luna Negra Dance Theater;[35] by 2006, Luna Negra had achieved its goal of performing at the theater, and returned there in 2007. It's overly wordy and not clear.
- I gave it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked it further, after working on the rest of the paragraph. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still not quite there... Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to After the 2003 opening, small dance companies aspired to perform in the state-of-the-art theater;[39] one such troupe, Luna Negra Dance Theater, achieved its goal and performed there in 2006 and 2007.[40][41] Is this better? If you have any ideas, please feel free... thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article repeats the opinion that the theater "raised the profile of local dance groups" in Chicago without attributing this. It then goes on to talk about the Frommer's and Fodor's new editions. I'm concerned that this might be synthesis. We don't know what the previous profile was, and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to do our own comparison of, say the 2000 edition of Frommer's vs the 2010 edition.
- It is a direct quotation and I have attributed it to the 2005 Frommer's Irreverent Guide to Chicago. So the sentence now clearly identifies the source and year of the direct quotation that the profile of dance groups was raised, followed by quotes from more recent guides (years also given in the text) by Frommer's and Fodor's. Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence is much better with the attribution, thanks. For the next two sentences, though, do those books actually talk about these performances in conjunction with talking about raising local dance profiles? Otherwise, I think it's synthesis.
- They do not explicitly talk about the profile of dance troupes. I was not sure what else to do, so I moved the raising the profile sentence so it is last in the paragraph (so the other statements do not seem to follow from it). The paragraph is now in reverse chronological order in terms of works quoted - is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The attempt to facilitate modest-sized performance groups has been appreciated;" - "appreciated" seems like the wrong word when used in this context. Can we really say that the two foundations "appreciate" the attempt?
To me it seems too trivial to mention the discounted ticket program for the last 90 minutes before a performance
- The point of that is in relation to earlier complaints that the theater was to expensive. They have introduced two types of discounted ticket programs. I think it makes sense to elaborate on them. They could become a tradition of some sort. On broadway there are different traditions for discounted tickets like the TKTS and individual theaters releasing last minute tickets. This is in keeping with discounted ticket info like that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that the Harris Theater has taken some business from the Chicago Theatre, and also mentions a new competition with the local Symphony and the Auditorium Theatre. Is there any information on whether the Harris's programs have adversely affected the other venues?
- I did not see any reports on this in the online sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have any articles to back this up, but it is my perception that the Chicago Theater district is blossoming. For example, Now that the Joffrey Ballet makes appearances at the Harris, that probably frees up some nights at the Auditorium Theatre for more broadway-type productions. The theater has really just kept the small- and medium-sized groups from getting squeezed out by the increasing Broadway in Chicago demand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the four paragraphs in Visiting performers start with "The theater"
do we really need to know about Payton's illness?
do we really need to know that the theater was mentioned in the NYT?
- For borderline notable articles I commonly throw the name of the most notable reliable sources into the actual text. That was the purpose of this mention. This is not an internationally known theater. However, I think I found content that makes the theater notable in other ways later so I will remove this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three pictures in the Reception section are likewise very small and hard to see. The ones on the left and right seem to be almost the same - do we really need both of them? I like the one in the middle and suggest that it be moved to the architecture section, replacing the others.
- Got rid of one and made the remaining two bigger - is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it is able to experiment by venturing along new paths" - how?
- I replaced that with a direct quote from the article so that it now reads He also notes that because of the theater's success it is able "to present an increasing number of risky, sometimes boundary-busting events the likes of which audiences will hear nowhere else in the area". Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to mention the discounted ticket programs in two places - I'd leave it in reception and remove the details from the other section
- Moved all discounted ticket program material to reception section, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reception, do we really need to repeat the praise about the acoustics, sightlines, etc? This is mentioned at least 3 times and should be tightened up.
- Consolidated and rewritten, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better, but there's still room for further tightening. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I tried to tighten it more - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your very helpful and detailed comments - I will work on responding to them in the next 8 hours or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I too will work on this tonight. I will knock off a few items now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize - I have been having intermittent internet access issues and lost web access a few minutes after I started my edits last night (which I had not saved of course). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe we have addressed all of your concerns or at least asked how you would like us to proceed in addressing them. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all have done good work so far. I've stricken some, added comments to some, and noticed a few that weren't address. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as I noted on your talk page, we are waiting for further feedback from you on the latest changes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for switching from oppose to neutral, we will try to address your remaining points. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:13, 11 June 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.
