Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:44, 31 July 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) 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two promotions to attain the upcoming September 1 50% featured article requirement. The first FAC was closed with no outstanding issues TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have the outstanding image concerns from the last FAC been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I am not much of an image guy and was not really sure what actionable issues remained in the last FAC. I am ready to follow advice on any image issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not enough image reviewers to get to every FAC, so you should locate an image reviewer and clarify these issues (you should have done that *before* renominating, per WP:FAC instructions, which require that all criteria are met before nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I am not much of an image guy and was not really sure what actionable issues remained in the last FAC. I am ready to follow advice on any image issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 08:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalCategoryTreeAction.do?deptMainCategoryOID=-536887892&categoryPath=%2fCity+Agencies%2fCity+Departments%2fCity+of+Chicago%2fSub+Agencies%2fMillennium+Park%2fFAQ+Categories&success=FAQ&entityName=Millennium+Park&topChannelName=SubAgency&contentType=COC_FAQ&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes is linked twice (although the second URL seems slightly different). Ucucha 08:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All sources OK; issues were resolved at the last FAC, and nothing new has come up. A competent image reviewer needs to give clearance on image issues. I will try to look over the prose in the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Crown_Fountain_Spouting.jpg is a copyright violation and TonyTheTiger knows very well it is, per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Crown Fountain. — raekyT 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per criterion three:
- File:Millennium Park within Grant Park map.GIF - Tracing is not sufficient originality to generate a new copyright. GFDL/CC-BY-SA license is not appropriate.
- File:Lake Shore Park 1883.JPG - PMA license should not be used for published works. Update accordingly.
- File:Pre-Millennium Park Grant Park.JPG - No license (!!!) (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10B); not low resolution (NFCC#3B); no specific rationale (NFCC#10A) - perhaps moot, as there's no apparent significant contribution (NFCC#8).
- File:Gehry Pritzker.JPG - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP
- File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg - Not low resolution, no specific rationale, GFDL/CC license is inappropriate (misleading) - an image cannot be freely licensed if it's a derivative of an unfree work.
- File:Crown Fountain Spouting.jpg - See above comment. Should know better after Crown Fountain FACs.
- File:Pavilion projects.JPG - No author/copyright holder attributed (NFCC#10A); no specific rationale (NFCC#10C); what is the significant contribution? (NFCC#8). Эlcobbola talk 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to archive this nom; TTT, as an experienced FA nominator, you simply cannot keep tying up FAC when it is so backlogged with unresolved issues from previous noms, and you should be taking responsibility by now to be assure that your noms are well prepared and will not be a drain on reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 31 July 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.