Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Millennium Park

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two more promotions by September 1 to retain its featured status. Although time seems to be against us, I hope for this not to be demoted for too long if we can not beat the clock with this and one more promotion. FAC2 was a recent quickfail due to image issues which have been resolved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination approved with image clearance from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring issues

Samples only, thorough review for similar needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINKing also continues, and has been a recurring issue in all of TTT noms; at some point, TonyTheTiger, I am expecting you to begin to take responsibility-- as an experienced FA nominator-- for your noms instead of waiting for other reviewers to clean up recurring issues, which creates an unnecessary burden on FAC reviewers and leads to lengthy nominations. At a minimum, Tony1 has mentioned overlinking in most of his reviews of your nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose issues, sample:
  • Isn't the "In addition to formal critical review" clause redundant? Other mayors is plural, Gavin Newsom is singular, and why is the link to SF mayor helpful to this article (overlinking)-- that is explained in his article. "Even" is POV, and since the source is a subscription only link, please provide a quote of the text justifying the statement that he "enjoyed" himself and its relevance to the article. I only checked this last section, these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrasing: considering some of the issues above, I'd like to see the exact quote backing this statement:
    • The Financial Times describes the park as an extraordinary 21st century park resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city.[5]
  • The content looks like it wants to be a direct quote, but isn't; how was it paraphrased to avoid plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this further on the FT quote request above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't look to be a direct quote. Relevant sections of the FT article look to be:
      • "His work is just one piece in an extraordinary public park that is set to create new iconic images of the city."
      • "In the previously moribund 25-acre site, Chicago has unleashed artistic liberation. In a city known for its historic skyscrapers with their clean, angular lines, the park offers chaotic curves. In a city known for its green parks, this is a space defined by its objects, not the turf beneath them. The result - a genuinely 21st-century interactive park - could trigger a new way of thinking about public outdoor spaces"
      • "This eclectic mix was driven by the ad-hoc accretion of new projects, led by financial donors. Indeed, this is a uniquely Chicagoan park, the result of a close collaboration between money and power."
—Jeremy (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some of these sample issues have been cleaned up, I am expecting a closer review of the article and its sourcing for similar-- these were samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Ruhrfisch

I have told TonyTheTiger I will copyedit this article. I have been a co-nom on FACs for several of the features in the park, but have not made any major contributions to this article directly (besides the image map). I had two questions on the article, one for Tony and one for the image experts.

The question for Tony is: why is there a separate section on the 2009 Pavilion projects? These were a temporary exhibition in Chase Promenade in the park for several summer months, and no longer are present there (something the article does not make clear). Since there have been several other such exhibits in the promenade and park that do not have their own sections, why does this get its own section? Would it make more sense to have a section on special exhibitions or art in the park? I also note that the {{Millennium Park}} template does not include the pavilions with the other permanent features. The template also mentions the Grant Park Music Festival, which has a much longer history, but is only mentioned in three sentences. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.

This is the main article of a WP:FT. It should summarize all the articles in the topic. The WP:FT guys have insisted that the Pavilion projects be included in the topic (over my initial objection in 2009 and renewed objection in 2010). As such it is summarized here on equal footing with all other articles within the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to handle the GPMF. I could expand it here if you feel that is appropriate. In truth I am not sure what the protocol is for a main article of an FT. I do think it be definition should summarize the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of my problem is that it treats the Pavilions like permanent features (when they are not) and does not treat them and the festival the same. What if there were an "Art and music" section that talked about the Pavilions and the music festival (perhaps as subsections of two paragraphs each) and then had a paragraph on other exhibits and concerts / events in the park? Perhaps it could even be called "Use" or "Usage" and also include the current popular culture paragraph (movies and tv shows use the park for filming scenes). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Are you interested in making such a change. Your editorial assistance is, as always, quite welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I plan to copyedit this, starting with the sections relating to articles I have already been a co-nom or done a copyedit on. I will be glad to try this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ce efforts so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YOu are welcome - got another section edited tonight, will hopefully get much more done tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I moved the Pavilion projects subsection and the Popular culture section to a new Use section, after budget. I also added the lead of the Grant Park Music Festival article there as a subsection. Does this look OK (still needs to be copyedited and more refs for the GPMF section)? I am done with copyedits on the 13 Features subsections, but not anything else yet. I was thinking of adding the architects to the Exelon Pavilions and moving most of the sentence on the GPMF from the Pritzker Pavilion section to the GPMF section too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question for an image reviewer is: would File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg be OK for use in this article? I assume so, as it was used on the Main Page when the Cloud Gate article was TFA. If not that, I assume File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or perhaps this image of the sculptor File:Kapoor cropped.jpg would work? More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New questions for Tony

2010 (UTC) OK, I am all done with the copyedit and everything and all of the issues I raised here have been addressed. I have changed to support above. I really need to see this park in person ;-) Thanks Tony for all of your work on these articles, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—the lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, in the first paragraph it says: "Completed in 2004, it covers…", then in the next paragraph we have "Construction began in October 1998 and was completed in July 2004" and "…was opened in a ceremony on July 16, 2004" —does the fact that the park opened in 2004 need to be mentioned three times in the lead? The third paragraph tells us that the proposed budget was $150 million, but he final cost was $475 million, then in the next paragraph (and only one sentence away) it tells us that the cost approximately three times as much as was initially budgeted —I don't think that this information needs repeated. I also think that the sentence on features have changing names is such a minor detail that it doesn't need mentioned in the lead.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have no objection to the changes you suggest. Do you want to take a stab at them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I had a go. I wasn't sure what to do with the last sentence: "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley at first placed much of the blame for the delay and cost overrun on Frank Gehry, who designed several parts of the park". This sentence, to me at least, implies that the next sentence is going to say that the Mayor changed his mind or that Gehry was in some way vindicated. But there is no next sentence. I also can't find this discussed anywhere else in the article; so perhaps we can just delete this sentence. —Jeremy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. If I have to explain myself again i believe that the article meet FA requirements because it is well sourced, gives a perfectly balanced account of the park, addressing the components of the park in turn. I have helped improve previous articles related to Millenium Park at the FAC stage and have offered constructive criticism where it is needed to ensure that the article is the best possible but I certainly do not post "support" unless I really mean it. I find Sandy Georgia's comments on my talk page accusing me of supporting this article as I have commented on Tony's previous FAC's out of order. At the end of the day it is Sandy and co who decides whether to promote an article or not, so I'm wasting my time here anyway. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I found this an overall great article, but there were a couple of issues.
    • The park curfew (the park is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily)[215] and obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew. - this is a sloppy paragraph.
    • Also, you have a couple of two sentence paragraphs. It may not be in the rules anywhere, but I prefer a paragraph to be at least three sentences long.
    • This article takes a while for my computer to load. Could you cut some info from the featues section, which already have spin off articles, out of the main one?

That's all for now. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning toward oppose: Sorry, but I can already see several problems in the lead: (No longer leaning toward oppose, but not actively supporting just yet.)

Some more comments (I'm still reading through the article, so I'm not done yet.)

Zag, where does this nom stand with you now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - strong summary article overall, but many minor issues:

Support All issues resolved now. Well done. * ... the Chicago Tribune dubbed Gehry "the hottest architect in the universe" cite the quote?

You have to cite directly after the quotation, yes?
Not sure, but I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* ...Pritzker enticed Gehry in head-on confrontations. Enticed and confrontations don't quite match. Face-to-face discussions?

* "The choice of Gehry was a key component in having modern themes in the park." This is not clear. The choice of Gehry led to more modern themes in the park?

* "The park was officially announced in March, 1998" The park did not exist. Do you mean the project was announced?

* "...its broad variety of amenities placed it under the jurisdiction of the city's Public Buildings Commission." Why? What to the amenities have to do with it?

* The "centerpiece" of Millennium Park is the Jay Pritzker Pavilion... Why quote centerpiece? It is a common usage.

* "... and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress." What is a headdress? What is signature Gehry about it?

It's better. But still: what's a headdress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is now linked as a bit of a misnomer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The pavilion and Millennium Park have received recognition by critics, particularly for their accessibility..." There are all kinds of recognition, good and bad. Don't you mean it has been especially recognized for its accessibility?

My point is that "received recognition" does not say anything. I think it's better now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "It was named after Ann Lurie." Who is Anne Lurie?

A little. But what does she have to do with this park and why did they name something after her? Did she donate lots of money? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amount added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The rink is operated by the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs rather than the Chicago Park District." Why? Why is this important?

It just seems like kind of bureaucratic trivia as it stands. I mean, does it really matter?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite relevant in the article about the rink. I could take it out here, but am not sure that I should. Will do so upon your request or you may just yank it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "The bridge's design enables it to bear a heavy load." What about it? Why is it important?

Highway standards doesn't really explain it, though. Why on earth would a pedestrian bridge be built to highway standards? And what would that actually entail? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an engineer and don't understand why the fact that it is built to highway standards does not explain why it can bear heavy loads. What exactly are you questioning and why do you want more detail in an overview article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is worth making, isn't it worth explaining? If there is something important about the load bearing design, what is it? If not, why mention it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have I made it relevant now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture." Cite the quote.

See above. Don't you have to cite the quote directly? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected as above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* "... the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses." You mean Energy star rated?

* "It also serves as a venue for event planning on a rental basis." This does not make sense. You mean people rent it for private events?

* There is a lot of overlinking: loading dock, work of art, bean, mercury, themes, slope, sheet metal, flower boxes, pedestal, Metra (multiple times), pedestrian bridge (more than once), hill, lots, photographer, grant. There are others.

I hope most English speakers know what a loading dock, theme, sheet metal, flower box, and pedestal (among others) are. Why link them?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Many of the captions are sparse and uninformative. Some have periods when they should not.

Sort of. The captions are still not very compelling. For example: "Crown Fountain attracts youthful attendees" does not add much and is not really supported by the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to point out any others that you have concerns with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wrigley square serves as a place of relaxation." "Boeing Galleries serve and an open-air gallery." Surely there is something more interesting to say about these interesting places? Also, as mentioned before, many of the captions that are not sentences have terminal periods when they should not. I deleted a couple. The rest should also be fixed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tired to make the captions more interesting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Why is Zagats survey redlinked in the references? Zagat survey exists.

* Is it really necessary to list four or five citations for the same claim throughout? I realize this is a matter of taste, but it is very distracting in an FA.

OK. But still. Why do you need all of that? Isn't there one really good reference that makes the point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of these items of critical reception is to show that they are the consensus of beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule of course, so I'll strike the quibble. I just wonder, for example, if the fact that Cloud Gate is popular is really so controversial that the consensus of opinion would ever be in doubt.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. I'll support when the overlinking is fixed: why is "Illinois" linked just after "Chicago". Who wants to go to the article on the state when reading about a park in this well-known city? Why is "cost overrun" linked? Is this an obscure term? Why is "pedestrian bridge" linked? "Flower boxes"? "Sound system"? "Headdress"? ("Headgear, headwear or headdress is the name given to any element of clothing which is worn on one's head." ... Is that article remotely useful to the readers?). "Naming right"? "Christmas caroling"? "granite"? "reflecting pool"? Themes? Dualism? "Universal design" is unclear, and the readers shouldn't have to hit a link to find out the definition of a term. "Perennials", "bulbs"? WP is not a dictionary. Needs to be fixed throughout.
    1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Acres should not be converted to metres squared. Otherwise, why not feet squared first? Either ha or km2.
    1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The area had previously been occupied by"—"was previously occupied by".
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MoS breach in "March, 1998" (no comma).
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Chief executive officer (CEO)"—small c. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per TonyTheTiger's request, I removed all instances of voerlinking that were specifically mentioned here. I also removed the links to the features in captions and duplicate links to periodical like the Tribune, Sun-Times, Time, Financial Times, and USA Today in the refs. diff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice work all round. Any chance of starting a stub on "Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs" to avoid the prominent red link? Tony (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that go linked. We can't have articles for every department in every mayor's office. I just delinked it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Finetooth Comments. I had not read this article before today. It's quite an impressive piece of work, and I'm leaning toward support. I made a fair number of proofing changes as I went, but I still have a short list of quibbles.

Grant Park Music Festival
"The festival began when the music shell was located in its original location and moved when it was relocated." - This is ambiguous because it might mean that the shell was moved. It's also redundant, since we already know when and where the festival began and when and where it moved. I think you could delete the sentence to solve the problem.
removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and it has consistently enjoyed the efforts of many of the world's leading classical musicians" - Since the festival can't "enjoy", maybe "and many of the world's leading classical musicians have performed there"?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Burnham Pavilions
"They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan, and were meant to symbolize the city's continued pursuit of the plan's architectural vision with contemporary architecture and planning." - To avoid repeating "plan" three times in this sentence, could the last part of the sentence simply be deleted? Suggestion: "They served as the focal point of Chicago's year-long celebration of Burnham's Plan."
I cut out the last five words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Height restrictions
"The height of the Crown Fountain, which is also exempted as a work of art, has been described as stemming from a "pissing contest" with other park feature artists." - If the joke is intentional, OK, but if "fountain" and "pissing" have been juxtaposed accidentally, maybe another word or phrase would be better. Or you could just delete the sentence if it adds nothing important.
Pissing contest is an American English idiom and a quote from the source as depicted by the quotation marks. Wiktionary sort of describes the idiomatic use, but not exactly. I don't understand what correction is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I leave this one for you to decide. I know what a pissing contest is and that the original meaning refers to a contest to see who can literally piss furthest. The writer you quote was probably making a joke about the similarity between a piss fountain and a water fountain, but I can't be sure because I don't have the source document. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that some readers will think "piss fountain" when they read the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use restrictions
"As a sponsor, Toyota's name was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage." - Since the name wasn't the sponsor, could this be recast? Suggestion: "The name of Toyota, one of the sponsors, was included on Millennium Park brochures, web site, and advertising signage."
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Financial issues
The caption, "A corporate underwriter's stone marker (SBC Plaza is now AT&T Plaza)" is a bit mysterious. What does SBC stand for, and what is its relationship to AT&T?
I have linked the appropriate terms.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Citations 195, 196, 197, 198, and 201 have non-conforming date formatting.
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker spots three new dead urls in the citations.
Swapped in archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Three images in the article displace subheads or edit buttons on my computer screen. The Millennium Monument image does not fit inside the Wrigley Square subsection. The Boeing Galleries image displaces the Chase Promenade subhead. The Chase Promenade image does not fit inside the Chase Promenade subsection. The images could be shrunk or removed or moved to a new location within the article. I understand the desire to illustrate everything and to put the illustrations next to the texts they relate to, but a cluttered layout is off-putting. You might be able to stack three images in the Budget section or combine short subsections to make larger subsections with room for illustrations.
It is pretty difficult to optimize appearance for all screen resolutions. I am pretty satisfied having the images adjacent to the text with mild issues it causes. This is an acceptable tradeoff, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Might be a special case. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support. An impressive article, as I said above. I enjoyed reading it, and I would like to visit the park. Finetooth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 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.
  1. ^ King, John (December 9, 2005). "San Francisco: Mayor widens vision to urban architecture. He doesn't want a 'dumbing down of quality' in design". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  2. ^ King, John (August 12, 2006). "Mayor of S.F. Looks Eastward For Urban Inspiration: Winds of change blow from Chicago". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  3. ^ "China's image in the heartland". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. May 12, 2005. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  4. ^ Spanberg, Erik (August 1, 2008). "New agenda on open space: Study of uptown park plans is expected to highlight need for more". Charlotte Business Journal. American City Business Journals, Inc. Retrieved August 8, 2008.
  5. ^ Daniel, Caroline (July 20, 2004). "How a steel bean gave Chicago fresh pride". The Financial Times.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_Park/archive3&oldid=1136096533"