Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willis Tower upward pano[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 00:21:57 (UTC)

Original - an upward panorama of Willis Tower from Wacker Drive.
Reason
This is a featured picture on commons and German Wikipedia. It is also a quality image on commons. Despite being a little light in terms of EV, it represents a masterfully stitched panorama.
Articles in which this image appears
Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
Wacker Drive
FP category for this image
places
Creator
Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not so sure about the EV. To me, a photo with the most of Sears Tower, similar to a File:Sears Tower ss.jpg in a vertical fashion has higher EV. An slanting tower with three other buildings does not appeal to me. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea behind this image was to get the main entrance with the new building name on one picture together with the recognizable three-tiered silhouette of the building. I am personally pretty happy with the result, from an "EV" standpoint (the building remains recognizable even from this view, which is how many pedestrians see it by the way) and from an aesthetic standpoint (the picture has a fairly unique look to it which goes beyond haphazard pretty lighting conditions). But the Arkansas-State-Capitol-incident in mind, I am not surprised to see oppose votes here (not meant to sound bitter, just a personal comment on what I perceive to be the general taste in this forum). --Dschwen 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think a street level view is equally valuable as one taken from a more conventional (in the FP sense) angle. The image quality is up to par in my view. My one complaint might be the lighting which is somewhat flat but allows for an unadultered view of the subject. Cowtowner (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It's nice that it also shows the new protruding observation decks near the top. -- mcshadypl TC 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is User:Dschwen considered a supporter of this nom or any of his other images that I nominated without asking him?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't got the time to read all the rules myself, but I would imagine the creator of the picture would not be able to vote myself... Gazhiley (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The creator of the picture is allowed to vote. Frequently, the creator is also the nominator, and the nominator is considered a voter... However, we can't assume his support. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • fair enough... You learn something new everyday... Gazhiley (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have a history of allowing creators to vote for themselves. Alchemist.Hp has done so regularly without anyone raising an eyebrow. I don't see why this should be different here Cowtowner (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (forgot to login, sorry)[reply]
  • Support btw... Though I would rather it on a nicer day as I think a bit more light would help the picture be more appealing, but that's purely asthetic... Gazhiley (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well ok, to make it official ;-). --Dschwen 13:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I will assume and accept that it isn't really possible to take the photo from further away and that this is probably the best compromise for projection/composition, but the distortion is a bit confusing and it doesn't illustrate the building well enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This picture simply fails to give a genuine idea about what the building is like - unlike other illustrations in the article. It barely looks like a skyscraper, and definitely doesn't show its interesting overall structure - it just looks like a boring relatively tall building. Moreover, the lighting is just bad. --Desiderius82 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It's true the lighting is flat and it doesn't show the bundled tube design of the Sears tower as well as some other images, but it's an eye catching perspective and shows what it's like at the base of this tower, as people would see it in the vicinity. There's no difficulty seeing this building is much taller than the surrounding medium-height high rises. And there's no rule that only one FP is allowed, only that an FP is "among the best examples of a given subject." It's well done for what it's trying to do. Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose While I agree that the building could deserve a street view FP (rather than the usual skyline shot), and acknowledging that is a smart composition, I find it still too distorted, flat lit and with limited EV, as it does not really provide much information about the street context. The name plaque is not so significant IMO, to justify this. I think a perspective from further away could be more informative. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my god, where did you find that amazing picture? ;-P --Dschwen 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry if you find it perverse to use one of your images as evidence for an argument against another of your images... Your overall contribution to the debate is much appreciated :). --Elekhh (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't find that perverse at all. I'm happy you noticed that picture. Everyone is certainly entitled to their preferences. If you don't think this particular shot is worth being featured, so be it. I just object to the notion, that this picture would have been better if taken with a different perspective. It would be a completely different shot with different intention. FWIW the distortions are surprisingly small for the large angle that is covered and the end result reproduces my impressions from the scene surprisingly well (3D would be way better though ;-) ). --Dschwen 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm gonna follow GregL's advice now [1] (it is pretty much self-defeating for the self-nominator to get in there and argue with those who vote oppose.) and let this nomination run its course from an observers stand point. Thank's for the comments guys! --Dschwen 03:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I'd full support if it were a nice day with a bright blue sky. Call me picky, if you must. Otherwise, I think this is a fine shot. upstateNYer 02:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak EV - I don't see why a photo of this building looking straight up is needed when you can take a better photo of pretty much the same thing from a few blocks away - and there's no excuse for the poor lighting given that the building isn't going anywhere (I hope!) and can be photographed again on a sunny day. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Willis_Tower_upward_pano&oldid=1138150393"