Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we would like to submit to WP:FAC soon and wanted a last check to make sure it meets the FAC criteria.

Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am copying User:Brianboulton's comments from the article's talk page below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some prose comments and suggestions

At the request of Ruhrfisch I have agreed to act as a set of fresh eyes and to check over the article's prose, rather as I might in a peer review. Here are my comments on the lead and the first main section; more will follow over the next few days.

  • Lead
  • Design and development
    • "Jay Pritzker's widow, Cindy, was unimpressed with the original design and demanded that Gehry be involved." Far too vague. Although Gehry's name is mentioned in the lead, he needs to be properly introduced and his expertise made clear.
    • "Mayor Daley trademarks" Who is Mayor Daley? (This may seem an odd question, but like the Pritzker family he is not well-known over here. Also, wasn't there more than one Mayor Daley?)
    • What is a "Skidmore architect"?
    • More awkwardness: "The choice of Gehry was a key component of having modern themes..." It was Gehry's acceptance of the commission that was the key component, and "of having modern themes" is weak prose. Suggest "the key component in the modern themes strategy..." etc
    • The Pritzker details should be given eaelier rather than introduced here, mid-paragraph. I'd say this whole paragraph needs some attention as it is a bit of a mishmash of facts without much logical organisation.
      • I moved the Jay Pritzker and family sentence up to follow the introduction of Cindy, plus added that they sponsor the Pritzker Prize, which Gehry received in 1989. Move the first sentence of the mishmash paragraph to start the Construction section, as it serves as a bridge between Gehry's design and actual construction there. Did a minor tweak on the sentence that used to mention Gehry three times. Hopefully this all reads better now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the pavilion suggests musical qualities" I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Also, the effect of this paragraph is rather spoiled by its somewhat mundane final sentence.

Hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are very helpful - I will start addressing them soon, but wanted to thank you now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got busy doing something else and am calling it a night - will work on these tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - I addressed all that was left except mainstream concert that Tony (as primary author) should know (at least better than I). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments:-

  • Construction
    • I found this section difficult to read. While it is necessary to include construction information in the article, I believe the present level of detail in this section is excessive. I think most of the information in the first paragraph, giving particulars of the precise responsiblities of various contarctors and subcontractors, is inessential and could be cut. The technical information in the third paragraph is rather overpowering, and again I wonder if this really necessary.
    • The short paragraphs at the end of the section, beginning "Jay Pritzker Pavilion cost $60 million..." seem to be out of place in this section, as they are not concerned with the construction process. Can another home be found for them?
  • Acoustics: mostly OK, but I had difficulty with this sentence: "Sound arriving directly from lateral sources masks city disturbances." It is probably saying something quite simple in a slightly complicated way.
  • Controversies
    • Aaron Montgomery Ward should be identified, not merely linked
    • First paragraph: the "controversy" seems to be the classification of the pavilion as a work of art, thus enabling it to bypass the height restriction on buildings. But was there truly a controversy, in the sense of strong disagreement and counterargument? The comment quoted from The Economist seems on the whole to be supportive of this evasion of the regulations. Was there a debate about this?
    • "Other controversies during construction involved escalating costs and delays; both the pavilion and park opened four years later than originally planned and cost millions of dollars more than expected." Can these be described as "controversies"? Late completion by a contractor, and underbudgetings, are problems, but I wouldn't rae them as controversies.
    • "a classically trained musician who chose only piano and organ accompaniment": Does this mean "for this performance chose only..." etc? Again I am not sure that "controversy" is the right word for the matters you then describe – they seem fairly trivial matters to be highlighted in the article.

I'll try and complete my comments tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

  • Events
  • Reception
    • "...the supporting backside along Randolph Street is controversial..." In what way?
    • "The director of Millennium Park has been honored for his contribution to making America more accessible." Eh? "Making America more accessible? Sorry, I don't understand.
    • "The decision to save money and not slope the Great Lawn as much as originally planned was controversial." There is a tendency to overuse the term "controversy". There can be disagreement over things that don't amount to controversy, the essence of which is strong public argument and debate, usually carried out in the media. Thus: "the supporting backside along Randolph Street has attracted criticism" and "The decision to save money and not slope the Great Lawn as much as originally planned was not universally popular" – these are ways of expressing divergences of view without falling back on "controversy".

Those are my comments on the prose. The main image at the end is stunning. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, these are very helpful comments, and I will work on this soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for late content addition. I was looking for a book for Petrillo Music Shell and stumbled upon a relevant book for this. If you get a chance pay close attention to the late contributions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by doncram: I saw notice of this at User talk:TonyTheTiger and have just read almost all of it. Article is really interesting, nice job! About the section now titled "Controversies", I like that it is a separate section and that it goes into various during-design, during-construction, and opening/early operations issues. It seems reasonable and interesting to go into those, and the discussion indicates that the Chicago community is involved and taking ownership of the public space (or continuing with Chicago traditions of ownership over that park area). Some of the issues are unique due to the scale and novelty of the project. It reminds me of one controversy about the Gehry-designed Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, where the burnished metal curves reflected too much and focused uncomfortable amounts of sunlight into some nearby buildings (resolved eventually by dulling selected parts of the curved surfaces). My point is that startup issues are present in other Gehry designs and perhaps in most other major new public area constructions. Big new ships require shakedown cruises to sort out all their startup issues. The Disney Music Hall article has a separate section titled "Reflection Problems" on that one issue there. But perhaps there is a useful catch-all section title wording in other Wikipedia articles. Perhaps the title of the section should be revised to something like "Design and Startup Issues" to convey that the controversies/issues are now in the past, if that is accurate. Or add a separate section on "Continuing Issues" if needed. Startup issues like the park policy about where alcoholic drinks are allowed, and the early faux pas of confiscating water bottles, deserve mention and are interesting, but surely those are fully resolved now. "Glitches"; "Problems"; "Startup Issues"?

Very small question/point: the clickable map of the Millenium park has a caption explaining it is "wikilinked". The term "wikilink" is jargon and seems wp:selfishly referring to Wikipedia, in a mild way, to me. Perhaps the term itself should be wikilinked (to wikilink?) so that readers can find out what it means, or I think I would prefer for it to be avoided. Just "linked" perhaps? But I am not familiar with what is Wikipedia FA policy and practice on use of the term.

Hope this helps, and again nice job! doncram (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments from Ruhrfisch I think that the level of detail in the Construction section is comparable to that in other FAs on Millennium Park features (especially BP Pedestrian Bridge and Crown Fountain), so I am reluctant to trim it much (although this sentence could be trimmed U.S. Equities Realty was responsible for negotiating contracts with Gehry and all contractors who performed construction, civil engineering, audio engineering and landscaping.[7] I had thought about putting the contractors in the first paragraph in a note, but am not sure about that (again the other park FAs do not do this).

As for the controversies, I read all of the references that were online for the height restriction controversy, and most of them are about the controversy concerning building the proposed Children's Museum in another portion of Grant Park, with only tangential mention of the pavilion (if any). I have not read the books, but assume they go into more detail on the controversy. My concern is that there are newspaper articles on the Petrillo family's naming concerns, the Tori Amos concert charge, and the cost and time overruns, but not on this. My guess (original research warning) is that because Millennium Park was an addition to Grant Park (new park land), it was more acceptable to add features in the new park which broke the Montgomery Ward restrictions. Plus the park already had one bandshell, so another (huge) one was somehow OK. In the case of the Children's Museum, it seems that building it will result in a loss of some park land, plus the whole "why should this museum be given Grant Park land and not any of the other deserving Chicago museums?" question. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the level of detail is comparable to other FAs in the park. However, I think the order is a bit jarring. I think we jump into what might be considered minutia without warning. Since you are better at rearranging than I would you consider rearranging so that the first paragraph of construction details is not such a specialized section. I think we start off telling the reader who did different details before we have introduced the reader to the details. This is probably alarming to someone who might be a tourist who is unfamiliar with the park at all. Brian, being from across the pond is a good test reader for us in this sense. For you and I this is just another Millennium Park article that we are detailing. We need to step back and think about the international reader who is unfamiliar with the topic. E.g., saying who did the trellis before we make the reader appreciate what it is and its significance may be offputting. The reader is thinking "What trellis?", while we are already giving credits for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the Gilfoyle book mentions the controversy directly and the Macaluso book outlines the Ward battles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will reread the section and think about making it go more from general to specifics. Since the books discuss the controversies, sounds like the section name should stay the same. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to get this ready fairly promptly. My other FAC is getting toward the end of its run. How is calendar looking for the general to specifics editing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to finish up here in the next 24 to 30 hours or so. Hvae been busy in real life, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I am done with copyedits and think the PR points have been addressed. As noted, the detail is still mostly present in the Construction section, but I made a fairly major reorganization of that section which split up some of the details on subcontractors and tried to make things go from general to specific. The level of detail is also simialr to the other Millennium Park FAs. I checked and the Controversies section only uses the word controversies / controversial three times, and one of those is in the section header. If someone wants changes in FAC, we can deal with them there, but I think this is ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion/archive2&oldid=1078797944"