Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pritzker Prize/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [1].

Pritzker Prize

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Pritzker Prize/archive1

Tripled in size, masses of lovely references and images. Comprehensive, a complete list, not a content fork. What more could one ask for? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs), including image review.

Note on images I'm not an expert on this field so would like you get someone experienced to comment. For all the builiding images (most Flickr uploaded I think) they are reviewed because the license on flickr matches our requirements. However an uploader on flickr may falsely believe they own the copyright and therefore mistakenly release something they don't have the full rights to. It seems that photos of buildings might be derivative works unless the country has freedom of panarama which, according to this, France and Italy don't have. Like I said, I'm reading most of this information for the first time, but I think it needs looking into or and more knowledgeable editor to comment on. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambo, really good point. I'll go over the images and compare their location with the FOP info at Commons. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update for your Rambo - I've checked the location of each and every image, and the relevant FOP laws at Commons - my research and conclusion is on the talk page of this FLC. The upshot is that I need to replace the Le Monde HQ image because it seems, of all the images I selected, only the French aren't happy about FOP stuff. Cheers, I've learned something today! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked over the locations on the talk page and now think I now think FOP is no longer an issue. Good work there! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo, I've made sure all replacement images (see User:Medvedenko's concern below), are okay with FOP - mostly all from Japan, US or UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the new images and am happy that FOP is satisfied by the new ones, however I have some questions about the portraits:

I notice WP:PD states "the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States" so surely images need to be PD in the US

File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg, the source claims copyright by Susan King, restrictions of use: nil. Due to it being 1987, and having read this, I see no reason why this copyright has expired in the US, even if it has in Canada.
File:Arossi.png, no date of creation, publication or detail of author. Impossible to determine PD status from this little info.

Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll remove them. But do you think you should complete your research and get those nominated for deletion (at Commons in Gehry's case) as both are used elsewhere other than this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done, just like I listed the incorrect FOPs for deletion. My images issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

cited for "for 50 years" - extra "for"
- Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The jury, consisting of five to nine members each year, "experts ... recognized professionals in their own fields of architecture, business, education, publishing, and culture", deliberate early the following year before announcing the winner in spring. - the each year, "experts... seems to read funny, would "each year who are "experts [or] recognized ..." be better perhaps?
- Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes C. d Hadid was born in Iraq. Guess that should be "D. d"
- Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think ref dates should be Month DD, YYYY as this list is American based and uses AmEng
- Well MOSNUM says that as long as the dates are consistent within each and every reference, that's just fine. If you have or know of a script to fix it then cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found and used a script! Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 doesn't include the quote in the lead as claimed (as it goes to the main page maybe it's a site redesign)

Not many comments as I guess most issues were resolved through reviews below, just a few issues I found. Will support once these are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lord Richard Rogers, winner in 2007, designed Senedd, which is at FAC. Random fact. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting. Presumably the images used there are okay under FOP?! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be more appropriate under the "example work" column to use structures that were only built or designed at the time the architect was awarded the prize? Medvedenko (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the point of the prize is specifically not to award it for a particular recent work, more to award it for a body of work over a considerable period of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point. The architects weren't awarded for buildings he or she hadn't designed yet. The example works should show works that were part of the architects portfolio at the time of the award. Phillip Johnson's example was built 20 years after he was awarded. Richard Meier and Frank Gehry examples were designed 10 years after they received the award. These examples are not representative of the reason the architect received the award. Medvedenko (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These illustrations are examples of the architect's work in general, hence the title "Example work" rather than "works for which the architect won their award". I will, however, attempt to find works that predate their award, although it may result in some going without images, and then I'd need to add a note to say why. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all images now from either the year or years preceding the award. Some missing since I can find no examples here, on Commons or Flickr. I'd appreciate a suggestion for what to write as to why there's no image for those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea to have examples for those missing. Maybe adding a note to explain those that are from a later date briefly. That would mean extra work, so not sure if you want to do that.—Chris! _ct 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was only a suggestion to help give a better representation of what the award was awarding. I have no problem using a later piece of architecture if an early example is not visually available. Medvedenko (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it might be a good idea to insert a hidden note telling editors not to randomly switch images. They might not aware that the works shown are near the time they received the award.—Chris! _ct 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are now dated (with a "completion date") in the heading to avoid any ambiguity. All architects have an image. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I echo Medvedenko's suggestion that the structures shown in example work should be the one that were built or designed near the time he/she won the award. The current choice seem a bit arbitrary. Everything else looks good, though.—Chris! _ct 02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Medvedenko. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any faults, so I am leaning to support. Though I think you should note Ieoh Ming Pei's birth place. He was born in China.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Birth place noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ok, I am satisfied.—Chris! _ct 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the toolbox to your right; a few (external) links are redirecting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official Pritzker website has been up and down for past few days. But since when did redirecting cause a major issue? The links still actually work for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - anyone fancy commenting on the actual content of the list, the prose, the details?! All comments are, as always, welcome, but there seems little in the way of comments against WP:WIAFL at the moment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide some soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

Founded in 1979 by Jay A. Pritzker and his wife Cindy, the award is run by the Pritzker family and is considered to be one of the world's premier architecture prizes, so much so that it is often referred to as the Nobel Prize of architecture. -- Is so much so that correctly stated? Reads awkward to me.
- Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any licensed architect can also make a personal application for the prize before 1 November every year, before the jury, ranging from five to nine members each year, "experts ... recognized professionals in their own fields of architecture, business, education, publishing, and culture", deliberate early the following year before announcing the winner in spring. -- The many commas interrupt the flow of the sentence, I think a split would be nice here or better format of the sentence.
- Simplified. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

Those that have dashes for the example work its because there is no article or because they have no picture, or both?
- Fixed. See above discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

General: The publisher is actually The Hyatt Foundation and the work is The Pritzker Prize
- All instances fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

This section should come before the refs section.
- Moved.

--Tru co ₅₀₃ 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

I see redirects in the locations column of the table. Hopefully you have your handy redirect checker to fix things.
- No real need to fix redirects, but I'll do them if I'm doing something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of them are fine; it's just the ones with the articles at the beginning, e.g. The White House and The Art Institute of Chicago. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done 'em... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a living architect whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture." Period outside quotation mark per WP:PUNC.
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the award is run by the Pritzker family" "run by" doesn't sound quite right, perhaps "presented by"?
- "funded". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Latin inscription on the reverse of the medallion, firmitas, utilitas, venustas (English: firmness, commodity and delight) is inspired"-->The Latin inscription on the reverse of the medallion—firmitas, utilitas, venustas (English: firmness, commodity and delight)—is inspired
- "Em-dashed..." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"limited edition Henry Moore sculpture "-->limited-edition Henry Moore sculpture
- Disagree. I've never seen limited edition hyphenated, indeed our own article Special edition doesn't hyphenate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Objection sustained :) Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"currently Martha Thorne" "currently" is a dated word not encouraged by MOS. Try using {{as of}}.
- Removed "currently". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The jury, ranging from five to nine members each "-->The jury, consisting of five to nine members each
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of the image captions need periods at then end as they are complete sentences. Example: "Oscar Niemeyer won in 1988"
- Added where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images don't need alt text, but a couple, namely those of Norman Foster and Phillip Johnson, could use with elaboration. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Added "alt text" to the two images. How useful the alt text is for head shots, I am uncertain. And indeed, even though Johnson has something else in the shot, the primary use of the image is to illustrate Johnson, and nothing else, so the alt text is actually detracting from the point of the image, in my opinion. But there you go. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for the third time, ignore me. Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Regarding the links, I mean that some of the specific links redirect to the main page of the site. For example, Nomination Process, ostensibly about the nomination process, just goes to the main page.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Old link. Duplicated anyway. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now, refs 4, 7 and 8 are duplicates. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yah. Total fool am I. Fixed now I hope. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 3 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.