Talk:Exelon Pavilions: Difference between revisions

	Exelon Pavilions is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Exelon Pavilions is part of the Millennium Park series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 9, 2008 Good topic candidate Promoted September 3, 2010 Peer review Reviewed September 25, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 13, 2008. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment FA‑class This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Chicago FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should {{Engineering}} be added to this page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid an edit back to my version since it added a link to a dab pg and incorrectly called the "References" section as "Notes". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Ref 20 (Exelon Corp Press Reslease on North Pavilions getting a Silver LEED rating) is a dead link - it is not archived on the Wayback Machine or WebCite. I found this Chicago press release Millennium Park's North Exelon Pavilions Receive a "LEED Silver" Rating. Would this work as a replacement? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems sufficient to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I also note there is no ref connecting the pavilions to the Montgomery Ward height restrictions, only this None of the Pavilions is more than three stories in height. which has no ref (but there are refs that give the heights). I looked at all of the refs for the height restrictions that were available online and did not see any mention of the Exelon Pavilions. I worry this would be an issue at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not surprise me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote it so that I think it flows a bit better. I worry that there is too much material on the backgroun of the height restrictions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not care for the locator maps in the two infoboxes. The dots are not quite in the right place in either map, and of course, there should be two dots (as there are two pavilions), not one. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the map from the south pavilions box and am trying to make a template showing all four dots on one map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need one more image. Here are the unused ones I could find

• 
  (l to r) Theater, NE pavilion, Cycle center (cropped)
• 
  (l to r) NE pavilion, roof of Theater
• 
  (l to r) Theater, NW pavilion (cropped)
• 
  (l to r) SE, Lurie Garden, SW pavilion, bridgeway (cropped)

What do others think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 4th one is the most useful in adding context to the Pavilions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I cropped the first one now too. Is that any better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I agree and used the 4th image in the article, but had to reorganize the article so it had a section it fit in. I like the new structure of the article better - it eliminates some repetiton it had before (design started in 2001, construction started in 2004, etc.) was all in there twice (one for North and once for South). Do you like it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very decent pictures indeed. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Wehwalt's questions at FAC, if it helps: There is one source that claims the limit is effectively 40 feet. (Cartiere, Cameron (2008). The Practice of Public Art. New York: Routledge. p. 141.). Regarding the buildings, some of the older buildings (like the Art Institute) were allowed under less restrictive covenants and because Montgomery Ward chose not to challenge them. The more modern buildings (and expansions to the Art Institute) have been allowed because they were deemed necessary (more precisely non unnecessary) to the purpose of the park. There is an excellent discussion of the legal history here.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My goodness, those are both amazingly helpful and something neither Tony nor I found despite lots of looking. I am fairly busy IRL right now, but will add this to the article in the next 12 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I added something - hope it reads OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling it a night, but there are still a few unresolved issues from the FAC.

• Excessive bolding in the lead - Tony, what do you think?
  • Personal preference is to bold all alternative names.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the bolding follows the MOS and you prefer it, I am OK with that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further thought, I removed the bold from the "North Exelon Pavilions" and "South Exelon Pavilions" in the lead. It seemd reasonable to have just the article name and the names of the four individual pavilions bolded in the lead (5 bold terms, not 7). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixing the captions - I know you used to be able to add notes to images, but this seems to not be working now.
  • I have attempted to fix the caption of File:South Pavilions, Lurie Garden, New AIC Wing.jpg .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of the opinion that only the south pavilions are visible in File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. I think the current caption misrepresents the image in this regard. It should say something like "Aerial view of Millennium Park, with the North Exelon Pavilions at the bottom edge (out of view) and the South Exelon Pavilions near the top (the two structures on the eastern (left) half of the park on the near side of the street).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your caption tweak works for me, thanks. At the bottom edge of the photo from the Aon building you can see the white fabric roof of the Harris Theater terrace. On either side of this the top parts of the roof of each of the North pavilions are visible - they are barely there, but a portion of each is visible. You used to be able to add comments to an area of a photo, so I thought if I could do that, it would help, but it is not available on Commons now, or working for images I have already added such notes to. My thought was if the image could annotated, we could just note that in the caption. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed the caption of the aerial view of the whole park to just "Aerial view of Millennium Park in 2005; north is at the bottom." Until Sept. 22, 2010, images on Commons could be annotated, but the feature had a bug and was turned off. Assuming the problem is resolved, I then plan to annotate the image (you draw rectangles on the image and when the cursor is over that area, it shows a label). Perhaps the caption could then say something like "Aerial view of Millennium Park in 2005; click on image for a labeled version." A workaround for now would be to make a labeled image, perhaps similar to File:Ricketts Glen Lakes 1939 labels.PNG, and link to that in a caption. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible ovelrinking.
  • I am an overlinker. My opinion is no good on this. I think all marginal links should be retained and am always contested. Do what you feel is best.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I need to sit down and read this carefully. I do not think that it is seriously overlinked, but will see. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone through an removed a few more links (mostly repetition of the Art Institure link). I tend to err on the side of overlinking too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reread the FAC and add more as needed here tomorrow - thanks especailly to Tony and to all the reviewers, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe all of the outstanding issues from the FAC have been addressed now - I will send out thank spam, but if anyone has other comments or ideas, please raise them here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A multi-million dollar structure to produce enough energy to power 14 Energy Star houses, I mean, really... 14?

This is the featured article? Seriously? No wonder why most people don't care about solar energy.--200.95.129.67 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]