This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a key article in the WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- 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.) 13:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- Images have some problems - why use Image:800px-The cloud gate.jpg with a fair use rationale I do not understand when it is on Commons in better resolution and a clear free license as Image:The cloud gate.jpg. I did not check all of the other pictures, but there is also a Fair Use tag on Image:Pre-buffing Bean'.jpg - however, a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License does not need a Fair Use rationale.
- I have swapped the first image you mentioned. Shouldn't most sculpture images have FURs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the images need to be fair use. The entire Cloud Gate category is up for deletion on Commons [1] (unfortunately, the individual images weren't tagged, so this isn't apparent). A Tribune article cited by this article does note that, although the city has stopped hassling individual photographers, you still need the artist's permission for commercial use or publication of photos [2]. --dave pape (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was thinking only that the image had a free license and forgot that the sculpture is a work of art and thus needs a fair use rationale - my bad. SOrry again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References must back up what they are claimed to report - the article claims "The piece has become one of the most popular public artworks in the country.[6]" (and extraordinary claim if ever I read one) but the ref from Time Magazine does not actually say this. It does say it is "a destination" and "an essential photo op", both of which would be good quotes here, but it never says it is one of the most popular artworks in the country. I note that I caught a similar mis-use of a reference in my peer review of Crown Fountain.
- Lead seems to have too much detail on former names of the Plaza (this is about the sculpture) and I still think "the Loop community area of Chicago" is odd sounding.
- Needs a copyedit - see WP:PRV for help - prose needs to be at a professional level for FA.
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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]