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 21:07, 14 July 2009 [1].

Cloud Gate[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) Torsodog (talk · contribs)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a high quality article that has been completely reorganized since the last FAC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very nice, concise but comprehensive article. It is fully referenced and to me is very well written. I made a few copyedits and have no further concerns. Reywas92Talk 20:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because I strongly feel that it is given undue weight by sticking it in the lead, not to mention the fact that it was awkwardly tacked onto a paragraph. It is mentioned in the body and, IMO, that is enough. --TorsodogTalk 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Cloud Gate has become a very popular sculpture and is known worldwide. ". Very generalised. Needs rewording to avoid implying that it is known by everybody across the world. Something like " is recognised internationally" would be better. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is Kapoor's first public outdoor work in the United States,[15] and is the work by which he may be best known in the country." I think you should remove the word "may" as it makes it look like speculation rather than fact. The Financial Times source asserts that "it is his best known work in the United States" so I think you can safely say "it is" rather than "it may be". Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Findarticles.com a reliable source? Does it have professional credentials or is it written by amateurs? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which reference you are referring to, but find articles is an online republication of an original secondary source. The original is an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's want I wanted to verify. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicago art critic Edward Lifson considers Cloud Gate to be among the greatest pieces of public art in the world". Is this surprising? Is his view somewhat hampered by inherent bias given that he is a citizen of the city and inclined to relay a sense of pride in it? Maybe find a more neutral response. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text clearly notes that he is a Chicago art critic. Can't we leave it to the reader to put two and two together. I know of other sources at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that open.

Support I think this is just about at featured level although in the lower sections I think some of the sentences could be rewritten slightly to provide a better understanding, what stood out was "Kapoor also creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors". Overall this provides an excellent overview of the sculpture providing all the relevant aspects. I've made a few copy edits and added an image File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpgwhich I think is very relevant to illustrate the way in which the structure reflects and distorts reflections. Given that this is a centralised discussion in the lower sections i think this significantly contributes to the article. The image would seme to be about the boy rather than specifically the sculpture. Is this image acceptable or does it require a fair use rationale? Does it infringe upon personality rights? The image is correctly licensed as Cretaive Commons 2.0 Attribution to under the terms of this license we should be able to use it in the way this license says. Either way, I believe the image is of benefit to the article and an improvement. I'd be interested to see what the image experts have to say, if it is an issue it can be removed immediately. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the image of the boy and his reflection on the sculpture aid the reader sufficiently to merit inclusion. I hope that the additional image does not infringe upon WP:NFCC concerns and am willing to remove it upon request by an image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport

done although I do not think the second comma belongs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kapoor's contract states that the constructed piece should be expected to survive for 1,000 years" This sentence does not seem connected to the ones before and after it. Can it be given a better home in the flow of the text? Is it known whether this was in Kapoor's contract alone, or was it a condition of the design competition?
Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job with copyedits. I am not sure where this should be moved to. Maybe he might have a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was BOLD and moved it to the end of the Construction and maintenance section and made a few other minor copyedits. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...notable February 2009 incident during which the names "PeterS" and "Ashley"..." We really do not need to know the names, and reproducing them somewhere prominent like WP can surely only encourage such vandals. Please please please leave the names out.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Prior to creating Cloud Gate, Kapoor had created art that distorted images of the viewer instead of portraying images of its own. In so doing, he acquired experience blurring the boundary between the limit and the limitless." I dunno. I think of myself as an art buff, and write WP articles about artists, but I'm going to need an explanation of how distorted images of the viewer "blur the boundary between the limit and the limitless".

This is sourced content. However, as the viewer can make himself part of the subject and as he can infinitely change the subject by his movements, we do have limitless possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re both this and the next point - I don't doubt it's sourced content, it's just that, sometimes, reliable sources write gibberish, or to be fairer to the art critics, sometimes they are not writing for the lay audience of an encyclopedia. Take the above point. Your explanation is a good one: "as the viewer can infinitely change the subject by his movements, we do have limitless possibilities". However, that isn't what the article (and perhaps the source) said. It talks about distorted images, not multiple ones, and it talks about blurring the boundaries between limit and limitless, rather than about creating limitless possibilities. The exact words in the article are, in my view, non sequiturs and, arguably, nonsense. I don't blame you, TonyTheTiger, I expect you're doing the best you can with the material available, but I would like to ensure that the critical observations chosen to be included in the encyclopedia will make sense to a lay reader. The same goes for my point below about masculine and feminine, though with hindsight I didn't explain myself, thus being guilty of the same crime as the art critic. The article makes a link between "a tension between masculine and feminine" and "multiplying visitors' images when they are positioned correctly". This again does not actually make sense. I'm aware of the concave/convex feminine/masculine concept, but that isn't the way it has been used in this sentence, which instead says that the creation of multiple viewer images in a certain location creates a tension between m and f. I just do not think that works.
  • If I understand your complaint it is that instead of describing the tension between m and f, I describe f aspects. I think the point is that the viewer takes the masculine role by inserting himself into the concave area and once the masculine role has been played the viewer is multiplied. My prose may not get the point across and I welcome advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the distinction between distorted and multiple images is not that significant. When art critiques get immersed in literal meaning I think much can be lost. Cloud Gate both multiplies and distorts images, which takes us beyond the boundary of simple reflections to a world where one can levitate or multiply oneself. I am not an eloquent art critic, but I think I am close to making a proper artistic point. I welcome any advice on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kapoor is a great artist and this encyclopedia entry deserves the sort of serious critical discussion that is being introduced in this section, so I support your efforts to make it work. I'm not sure how much I can do without Gilfoyle, but I'll do my best to think about it and try something out. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kapoor also creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors..." What??
    • Masculine and feminine abstract art themes are nothing new. Concave is female and convex is male. What is the issue. Again this is sourced content. I am not making this stuff up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas I think the "relevant Kapoor themes" section needs tweaking, I like "Cloud Gate themes" which works better.
Feel free to make suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine I am in a minority view on this;
  • Your edits and arguments are also good ones;
  • I haven't come up with a better idea; and
  • in any case, I don't think my arguments have merit in holding up the nomination of the article. I'm satisfied with your case and your changes, and am supporting. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout - I am posting a few comments on image layout on the talk page for this FAC so as not clutter things up here. I am fine with the new image of the boy and his distorted reflection (assuming those more knowledgable about WP:NFCC are also OK with it). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revised layout looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on two non-free image issues:

  • I think this image might even be better than the one we currently have to illustrate both the sculpture's underside and welds. I support replacing that photo and will gladly make the switch if there are no objections. --TorsodogTalk 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the new underside / welds photo - it also shows people interacting with the sculpture and their reflections, which is discussed in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image suggested by Torsodog is the very one I have suggested, so it would be ideal to use that published photo to help illustrate the aspects of the sculpture instead of the unpublished image. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would gladly switch out these images so Jappalang could strike this concern, but I'm a bit confused. While this image will pass NFC criteria, do we have permission from the photographer to use his photo? Maybe I'm missing something... --TorsodogTalk 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, Jappalang is saying that this would be an appropriate fair use image according to NFCC. Thus, we need to properly claim fair use, which is done without obtaining consent. I could do it, but you have handled a lot of the images that have been uncontroversial in the Millennium Park articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-free content here is the sculpture itself, which is publicly displayed in Millennium Park. —Jeremy (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Jeremy is trying to say that the sculpture is the subject and has been published, and WP:NFCC#4 applies to it. However, there is an error in this thought. Cloud Gate has not been published. As discussed in commons:/Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Sculptures and public art in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a public exhibition of a work of art does not constitute publication "where there are bylaws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege." Basically, US law defines publication as the distribution of copies of the work to the public. In this case, Cloud Gate as a singular existence of the art has yet to be published. Thus this photo fails WP:NFCC#4 by any means. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now confused. Above did we agree that a specific image is an appropriate candidate for fair use within this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, along with you and others above, agreed that preposterousuniverse.com's photo would be good to use in this article. However, it is not yet used. I oppose the use of the current image (File:Cloudgate5.JPG) uploaded by User:Iuthem because it was not published outside of Wikipedia. Note that preposterousuniverse.com's photo should not be uploaded over Cloudgate5.JPG as it should contain its own history. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it was a busy weekend in Chicago. I have finally added the new image, however, and I will add a deletion tag to the old image shortly. I think this should clear up the concerns with this image. --TorsodogTalk 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually arguing that, as Cloud Gate has been publicly displayed, the photo passes WP:NFCC#4. Also, per WP:NFCC#3 I feel that using an image of the sculpture where the photographer has granted permission for us to use it (as was the case with File:Cloudgate5.JPG) is far preferable to using an image grabbed without the photographer's permission (as appears to be the case with File:Bean3.jpg). As such, I think that changing the image was a very bad decision. —Jeremy (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, its a good thing I'm pretty cautious. I also emailed the photographer two days ago and obtained permission to use the photo. I will forward the email to the permissions department ASAP. --TorsodogTalk 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission has been confirmed and image page has been updated. This should address all issues with this particular image. Any other concerns, let me know! --TorsodogTalk 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job there, Torsodog, and I think this point can almost be considered fully resolved I noticed you have also reduced the size to ~530k pixels. Generally as far as I understand it, the recommended size is 100,000 pixels (area formed by height × width). 530k seems a bit high resolution still. I have tried reducing it to 50% locally and the welds, human interaction and distortion still seem visible. Is there a rationale for it to be 638 × 850? Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, the only real reason I had for resizing it the way I did was because the other non-free use images in this article were a similar size. I resized this image 50% to reach the ~100,000 pixel area and tagged the image to get the previous versions removed. The other two (or one, depending on the outcome the discussion below) non-free images will also have to be reduced in size. --TorsodogTalk 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file names have single quotes probably as a result of either human error or a renaming system that may be an artifact of avoiding filename duplication to reduce the size of the image while original sizes existed (or some other duplication avoidance). Surely, the filename is not a substantive part of your objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had sort of thought that after four FACs we had pretty much agreed that the pair of images jointly depict the image in compliance with WP:NFCC. It is beyond my expertise to argue about what is allowed. However, I take issue with the term "mystical distortion of objects". There is "clearly visible distortion of objects" described in the caption where oddly items on the north are reflected both on the east's and west's surface. The view from the east is the "most commonly identified angle" because of where the object is situated. There is not much room to view it from the west.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, Fasach Nua did not strike his oppose (he was reconsidering his opinion) by the time FAC2 was closed. While Awadewit sees no issue with using two copyrighted images to illustrate the subject, I am not as convinced as her (but not so much as a vehemant objection; basically resolving the first issue above would make this issue on the two views a weak oppose). If the article shows why two views require illustration, I would be convinced to strike the oppose for this point. As it is, I think it is the aspect of the distortions and not individual views that require illustration; hence one image instead of two. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we put the point made in the caption in the text, it would require both photos because there is no secondary source that makes this point. It is an artistic point made from obviously visible buildings in the photos (primary source). Although WP relies on secondary sources in general, on occaission in the absence of secondary sources, uncontroversial primary sources are acceptable. I could put the text in the main body of the article and then reference the pair of images jointly. Would that be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyTheTiger, I think that is running into OR territory. Based on images alone, it would be fine to say the buildings can be seen in vantages from either east or west, but to define that as Kapoor's concept of duality? I think a notable art critic's opinion would be required. Jappalang (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. so what would appropriate verbiage be to properly transition into this uncontroversial fact from the images? Where should the fact go. I just thought it went with the east–west duality. If it belongs somewhere else and should be transitioned into in another way please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is taking information (the appearance of skyscrapers) from primary sources (the photos), and defining it as an indication of an artist's concept (personal interpretation). As brought up in Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 35#Original images, "Yes, images should not be used as sources. Own interpretation == OR. This is what I think the most image OR comes from, i.e. the editors are not using images to demonstrate what text already says, but basing text on images." If the duality is indeed interpreted as the appearance of certain skyscrapers from two vantage points, someone notable would have spoken of it; it is in that situation then can we put the thought down in the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lest there be any confustion, the east-west duality statement is properly sourced from a standard secondary WP:RS. My question is what is the proper method to incorporate an uncontroversial fact (that buildings to the northeast and northwest can be seen on both the east and west sides of the sculpture) into the text. I am not trying to use an image to say that east-west duality is a theme of the sculpture. I am trying to present an interesting fact about the sculpture in our article. This is a new sculpture that has not yet had time to appear in contemporary art scholarly works. This article is almost entirely sourced by newspapers at this time because of the newness of the subject. Time will tell if it is a scholarly subject. However, it is certainly a subject of international encyclopedic note. I think the point you are making and that the link you reference is making is that an image is not a replacement for a scholarly source, i.e., "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". As an example. Suppose we had a painting of a blue sky. We could then say to the reader this is a painting of a blue sky. We could not say to the reader that this is a painting representing the artists motive of using variations of primary colors. In this case, the uncontroversial fact is that buildings to the northeast and northwest are visible in the reflections on both the east and the west. Yes I concur with the premise in the link that you mention that "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". However, this is a case of the blue sky. The premise generally does not truly apply to this basic uncontroversial fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyTheTiger, as far as I can see within the article, there is no secondary source that is backing the assertion of the "east-west duality" as the "appearance of the skyscrapers when seen from the east or west". For all I know, Gilfoyle could be speaking of metaphors when talking about "east-west" duality, some other physical representationm, or even another of Kapoor's work and not Cloud Gate. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. Gilfoyle mentions an east-west duality. No text mentions appearance of the skyscrapers when seen from the east or west in the reflection. However, the sky is blue and the buildings are reflected on the sculpture. The current text of the article does not link Gilfoyle's thematic statement with this uncontroversial fact. Furthermore, the link that you mention says "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" and that "Images (including photographs) are primary sources, and as such should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, except for a statement about that particular image itself" Is it a statement about an image to note an uncontroversial fact in it (I.E., buildings are visible in the reflection shown in this image)? In other words, could we say this is an image of Cloud Gate and its reflections of the city skyline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Describing what the photos are showing physically is fine. It is claiming what the photos physically show are connected in some concept that would prove problematic. It is okay to say "A shows these buildings here, B shows the same buildings there." It could be an issue in saying "A and B exemplifies the concept of duality by displaying the same buildings from two different angles." Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) TonyTheTiger, I appreciate your attempt to resolve this but I do not think it will work. Let me try again to explain this time, breaking things down in parts.
  1. situation: there are two external shots of the subject, Cloud Gate: one from the east, and one from the west
  2. issue: I do not feel it necessary to have more than one external shot
  3. why: aside from identification of a work of art, the photo would serve to illustrate critical commentary of it, which is pretty much summed up by the article's "By reflecting the sky, visiting and non-visiting pedestrians and surrounding architecture, Cloud Gate limits its viewers to partial comprehension at any time. The interaction with the viewer who moves to create his own vision gives it a spiritual dimension." Only one view (the best photo that illustrates this point, not necessarily the most common view) is needed.
  4. TonyTheTiger's first attempt to show signficance for two photos (diff): states the different views as illustrating a "duality"
  5. my issue: possible original research; the photos can serve as primary sources for physical descriptions, but interpreting meanings/themes from them would be OR without a reliable secondary source to back it up
  6. TonyTheTiger's second attempt (diff): describe the skyscrapers that appear on each view
  7. my issue: no significance or coming from a critical commentary. Taken at face value, it is describing what is on the photos and tantamount to pure illustration without critical commentary. Taken at the implied purpose, it—attaching "duality" to the reflections from two views—can still be construed as original research, even though the attachment is not overtly stated.
I think statements of the skyscraper's reflections on the sculpture would not address my concern. It would require significant commentaries from a notable critic(s) about the reflections as the representation of "duality". Even so, would it not be accurate to say that after seeing the reflection on one view, readers can easily envisage the reflection on the other?
I am going to try an analogy (oh boy): Imagine if Rodin's The Thinker is still copyrighted. Would it qualify our strict fair use standards to have a front photo, a side profile and a rear view if the only commentary is an overall, general commentary of the appearance of the sculpture (that of a man seemingly in thought, sitting with a hunched posture and resting his chin on his hand supported by his leg) when one photo readily does so? No matter how one takes reference from the photos and describe the musculature/sculpt lines from each angle, it would come into original research, especially if attached to a concept that a critic just talked about in abstract, or pure illustration. I hope I have explained my issue with having two photos of Cloud Gate here more clearly. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you said at first "Taken at face value, it is describing what is on the photos and tantamount to pure illustration without critical commentary." Then you make a somewhat faulty analogy by comparing a 5-year-old sculpture with a 107-year-old one. This analogy does not hold for two reasons. Critical commentary, reflection and circumspection on Rodin's work has been extensive. There are probably even critical commentaries on the Musée Rodin. Neither the artist nor this park has extensive critical commentary yet. We are limited in that regard. Second, this is not two images saying here is the sculpture from the left and the right. This is a sculpture depicting something tourists from around the world should want to see and that is consistent with a critical theme. Further response coming later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped in at my local branch of the Chicago Public Library (Blackstone Library). There is a second book about the park that also focusses on the construction of this new park. Critical review of the artistic elements do not yet exist in the literature. I will add a few thematic points from construction engineers and the like during the day, but there is not much critical review of this work yet. However, including both images is an instructive depiction for the reader. I have found a quote about another theme (sky–earth).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the section on Cloud Gate in an additional reference. The engineers reference the critical themes, but do not provide critical commentary. We are without critical sources because we are dealing with a new sculpture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you have misunderstood the point of my analogy, that is: if only a general statement or commentary about a sculpture by secondary sources is given, one cannot extropolate information from photographs (primary sources). Yes, the sculpture is new and if it lacks massive commentary, the article should reflect that. The project is in the business of taking opinions from secondary sources and collating them in an organised form. Original interpretations are a no-no. That is why WP:RS and WP:OR are in place. If no one states duality (by what concept does it mean) is expressed by seeing certain skyscrapers from the east and from the west, then we should not imply so. Neither do I see aspects of "you can't see where the sculpture ends and the sky begins" in either photo, which Cerny is likely to be referring to the situation where due to light conditions, the reflection of the sky on the sculpture is graduating to the same color and illumination as the background sky, thus showing no abrupt change (one cannot see edges or sudden shifts in color). Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling for WP:GAR and the GA Sweeps. It seems that the WP:WPVA group has set several precedents with art work where in the absence of WP:RS, an image has been used (see Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1) as a "detailed illustration" rather than as a reference. The current verbiage makes no point about duality. It merely illustrates an artistic element of the sculpture in terms of an odd reflective property of the curved surface. Would you consider going from oppose to neutral with the current verbiage since we have resolved one of your two concerns and mollified the second?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have some sources. Check back later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your point about Cerny. We have a RS saying there is a sky-earth duality and we have a quote explaining it. Is there something wrong with this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, in short, my contention is that it is not necessary to have two images that prominently display the themes described in the article; one is more than enough. As far as I can tell, your efforts are to ascribe additional significance to either view (to substantiate a need for two different views of the same structure), which I have failed to see any. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your complaint was that there were no sources discussing how the sculpture distorts the skyline. Now that we have one, the pictures jointly illustrate the point. Would you consider a second opinion because the two prior image reviewers were leaning toward their inclusion even prior to the new sources documenting their relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not changing my stance, but do note that it is now a weak oppose (the heavy emphasis of my oppose was on Cloudgate5.JPG, which is now not in use). Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your integrity. If there is a consensus to remove one of the images, I will do so rather than lose the promotion, but if the nomination can be successful without removing it, I would prefer to keep it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest here. It feels like we've been dealing with non-free use issues concerning these images of Cloud Gate for half my adult life. I am very pleased with the amount of FREE images we managed to get into this article considering the limitations. If we only had to cut one of the infobox images to have only two non-free images of the sculpture in the article, I wouldn't be terribly unhappy. I will say that I prefer the image from the east, though, as it shows both buildings and non-building reflections. Just my two cents. --TorsodogTalk 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, that if required, I am more than willing to remove one image to get the FAC promotion. However, currently we have 5 supports and 1 weak oppose plus two active editors in support. In addition we have two prior FAC image reviewers leaning toward supporting the weakly opposed issue by the current reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently found and upload an image of kapoor that we can use. Still not sure what is going to happen with this non-free image stalemate, but image:Kapoor cropped.jpg can also be incorporated into the article if we feel like it would add to it. --TorsodogTalk 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current image placement is problematic for high resolution viewing such as 1400x1050, 1440x900 1600x1024, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200. I view at 1680x1050 and with the map on the right it conflicts with the infobox to create a large whitespace area. We could either move the Kapoor pic to the top and move the map down or move them both to the opposite sides.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at the article, and the more I mess with its images, the more I am convinced that the second infobox image is unnecessary. The two images and the resulting caption absolutely dominated the infobox and is over all distracting to the general layout of the article. Furthermore, I think the two similar images combined with the extremely cumbersome caption might actually confuse some readers less familiar with the piece. All this combined with the fact that I could possibly see some NFC issues leads me to believe that the article might be better served without the picture from the west side. After all, the east side picture does show both building and non-building reflections! --TorsodogTalk 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the picture guy. Do what you think is best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused; where have I voiced objections to the three images you raised above? Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say one image in the infobox and one image of the interior, it could have meant no other images. I am glad we are in agreement that the rest of the images are acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having followed this, I think everyone agrees that the new photo of the omphalos and its welds should be used in the article (in place of the current image). The only other discussion on images is whether there should be one fair use image in the infobox or two - I don't really have an opinion on whether to have one or two as I am not an expert on fair use images. I will say that if there is only one image used, and it is from the west, I would prefer one with the full sculpture (the right edge is cropped here) and without the sky blown by the sun. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images are by the same photographer taken on the same day. If we go to a single image, you could choose any image. However, it should be from the east, which is the common view. However, please consider my 02:40, 2 July 2009 argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. during most of the day if you shoot the same subject from both the east and the west, one of them is likely to be somewhat sunblown. It is not that bad a shot though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stricken; all images appropriately licensed or justifiably qualified for fair use. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed In the interest of seeing this promoted, I was BOLD and removed one of the two images from the infobox (the view from the east). I did this as Jappalang and Torsodog are in favor of removing the image and Stifle seems to be, while TonyThe Tiger seemed to be OK with it. I used the ((Infobox Sculpture)) template which is a redirect to ((Infobox artwork)). I could not get a caption for the image in, so I added it as a ref / footnote. If my removal of the image is not OK, please revert. If anyone can add the caption to the infobox, please do so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I will [have] also reread the article and copyedit[ed] the recent additions if [as] needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 02:52, 12 July 2009 (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