Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA red line rerouted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CTA red line rerouted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 14:57:52 (UTC)

Original - A 2600 series car brings up the rear of a Red Line train (temporarily rerouted through the elevated tracks of the Chicago Loop) at Randolph/Wabash.
Reason
This is a featured picture at German Wikipedia and a fine example of high quality photography
Articles in which this image appears
Chicago 'L' rolling stock
2600 series (Chicago 'L')
Passenger rail terminology
Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Urban rail transit
Randolph/Wabash (CTA)
FP category for this image
Engineering and technology
Creator
Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For starters am struggling for EV - in its identified highest EV article it's way down and doesn't seem particularly irreplaceable there. In many other articles it's just in a gallery. I don't really know the rail system, but the claim to fame seems to be that this train has been rerouted to a line it doesn't usually run on, which would actually seem to speak against its EV. Additionally I think the DOF is far too shallow for this particular subject. The blown sky doesn't really help either, though maybe not necessarily a deal breaker, and that '2' sign in the extreme foreground is maybe unavoidable in this instance, but is quite unfortunately placed. --jjron (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Chicago 'L' rolling stock had no main image, I moved it to the main image position. It is in galleries in two stub articles (Randolph/Wabash (CTA) & 2600 series (Chicago 'L')) that don't have enough text to support more than the current main image. It could be the main image for the latter quite easily. I just do not know enough about the topic to judge which should be the main image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added to Urban rail transit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much a matter article spamming in an attempt to increase its EV, but sorting out what its EV is - I don't think that's overly clear, especially with the 'rerouting' business. Regardless, probably my bigger concern is the very narrow DOF for an image of a train. (FWIW could I suggest you consider trying to avoid article spamming - the station down the page is in 13 articles, of the 5 I checked you'd added it to all of them in the last few days, and there's a bit of a pattern with your other noms too, for example this is now in 6 articles, the basketballer you've just nommed is in 6... - there's probably not a lot of images that need to be in so many articles, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) increase its chances at FPC). --jjron (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • At one time either WP:WIAFP or WP:WIAVP use to say something about images needing to be in articles for 30 days to make sure it really belongs in the article. In this case, the image is appropriate in every use, and probably one of the better pictures in every article it is included in. WRT the station, that is an incredible picture (as you can tell by the feedback so far). I would not surprised if it is a finalist at commons PotY. It probably improves every article it is in. As for the basketballer, his image surely belongs in 4 of the 6 articles it is in. There are surely better point guards that could be included in point guard and assist (basketball), but not too many of them have the classic pose of basketball point guard signaling the play. We can discuss the propriety of its use further in its own nom. However, I am merely attempting to add his image in places that could use further visual content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't want this discussion to take this nom OT. But perhaps worth discussing this issue on FPC:Talk? --jjron (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good use of DOF to emphasize the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doubtful EV: the Red Line normally operates in an underground tunnel in this part of Chicago, not on elevated tracks. (The text of the caption in the nomination admits this). For this reason, the image represents a risk of misleading the viewer. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I particularly like how the colors (or lack thereof) came out in the image. The DOF was intentional and I thought worked quite well to emphasize the main subject. Sky is blown, but blends in an looks consistent with lightness levels of the street canyon walls (in particular the last visible house). Ok, enough patting my own shoulder ;-)--Dschwen 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, I think the DOF was a good choice here. NauticaShades 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At first I looked at this and thought, "boring". Then I looked closer, and found that it is actually quite beautiful and gave me a "wow" response. I'm a fan. upstateNYer 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (hopefully leading to a support): The technical and artistic quality of the image are right up there, but could someone please explain the EV? As in, when it's on the main page, what will this image be used to illustrate? J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/CTA_red_line_rerouted&oldid=1072170005"