Talk:Cloud Gate/GA2

Cloud Gate Individual GA Reassessment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notified: WP:WPVA, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, TonyTheTiger, Torsodog

This article used to be good before all of the recent changes. It no more meets the "good article criteria", specifically: (a) Criterion 1: it is poorly written. The prose and grammar are weak in several sections. There are several places in which information is repeated. (b) Criterion 3: it is not broad in scope any more: the article used to focus mainly on Cloud Gate as a work of art, etc.. It has now got so bogged down in the details of the fabrication/transportation etc. of the piece, that the focus on the art tends to be lost (recent talk page entries appear to reflect some of these issues). Keithbacha 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the article fails Criterion 3. How did adding information about its construction in addition to talking about its artistic value LESSEN the article's scope? --Torsodog^Talk 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crtierion 3 clearly states that the article should "stay[s] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". This article includes many too many unnecessary details re construction, etc. and loses its focus on the art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.17.63 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the article focus on the piece's "art"? It is a one-of-a-kind sculpture that has a very interesting and prominent construction history. And as a piece that has only been completed for ~3 years, its 1+ year of construction is certainly significant. --Torsodog^Talk 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that there is a discussion about the construction/maintenance, but that these sections are proportionately so dominant, going into a lot of "unncessary detail" (with a lot of repetition and poor writing, too), and taking away from the artistic dimensions of the piece. Cloud Gate is, after all, a work of public art, not some boring technical device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.71.85 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy edited most of the History section, and I found very little repetition. And the repetition I did find, I corrected, obviously. As for poor writing, from what I've read, the writing seems pretty good to me. Obviously not up to FAC standards, but it easily meets GA requirements.

As for your argument about the article going too far into technical details because it is an art piece and not a technical device, I have to disagree with you. While it is an art piece, it is also a one-of-a-kind technical achievement for its time. Therefore, the lengthy discussion on this construction history is warranted in my opinion. One area I do think could be removed or tweaked is the table. I could try to make that into a smaller prose section comprised of a couple sentences if you think that would be better. Anyways, I will continue copy editing the rest of the article tomorrow. --Torsodog^Talk 05:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not delve into any unnecessary detail. There is plenty of room for more extensive critical response/review and artistic themes. However, all information in the article should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the construction & maintenence sections can be called excessive - most of our art articles neglect technical aspects badly, and it is good to see something that redresses the balance. But these sections would probably be better after the (not ideally named) artistic themes & reception sections. But it seems to me to clearly meet GA standards in any configuration. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the construction details the maintanance and transportation details create necessary information that would otherwise leave an incomplete character to the article, the complete history of the object matters. As it is - it meets GA standards and should maintain that status; and those same issues are and would become important to achieve FA standard. Modernist (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep construction details. I consider the construction details to be an important part of the article. I think more people will ask "how did they do that?" than "what type of artistic theme is represented here?". I consider the length to be appropriate. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am closing this a kept. The GAR was opened by a WP:SPA that has taken no interest in the ongoing discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTT you appear to be pretty insecure and out of line, not only unilaterally "closing" the discussion here (this is a habit of yours, and the comments above re attempts at censorship are confirmed yet again), but also removing the wiki announcement of the GA reassessment at the top of the talk page (I am adding it again). First, you have no authority to do so and are going against wiki rules; and second, time needs to be given for a proper discussion to take place (it's only been a few weeks). I will make the decision re assessment at the appropropriate time. YOU certainly have no grounds or authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbacha (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? The consensus here is that the details should be kept. The only person disagreeing is you, who seemingly abandoned the "discussion," thus making this page irrelevant. Then you reopened it by adding NO new arguments. This GA reassessment should be closed as the current version passed GA Review less than a month ago, and a general consensus has been reached in this re-review that the current version still passes GA requirements (which is unsurprising since this IS essentially the version that underwent a GA review). --Torsodog^Talk 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 for and 3 against in no way constitutes a "consensus". And I note that between TTT and TD you have spoken 5 times in this short discussion; apparently, consensus for you two means shouting very loud, and if you still don't get your way, then use strong arm tactics and, yes, censorship! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbacha (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the only two people saying the article is not up to GA standards is the same 2 very vocal IP users (plus whoever is using the username Keithbacha, which was solely created to make this Reassessment and is most likely one of the two IP users). And please, stop throwing around the word censorship. It is getting kind of sad. No one is censoring you. YOU two are the ones wanting to take information OUT of the article, information that everyone else says is valuable. Also, as you haven't discussed the actual arguments made by any of the other 3 users who agreed with myself OR my last comment about the article which was an attempt to come to a compromise, this entire reassessment seems like it stems from a vendetta against TTT and I instead of actual concerns about the article itself. --Torsodog^Talk 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.