Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marquette Building

Marquette Building

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2010 at 00:00:14 (UTC)

Original - Marquette Building is a National Historic Landmark

Reason

This is a sharp image of a historic building and provides EV in its main usage as a result

Articles in which this image appears

Marquette Building (Chicago)
List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
Chicago school (architecture)(nominal)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Jcrocker

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I like this, the weather is great, but it's not as sharp as it could be and there's a lens flare. --I'ḏ♥One 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This appears to be your basic picture of a downtown building. As such, it doesn’t strike me as particularly eye-catching and is unlikely to elicit ‘stop, stare & click.’ And with all of Tony the Tiger’s nominations of Chicago-related stuff, some readers might wonder if Wikipedia, the United Nations, and the United Federation of Planets aren’t all headquartered there. Note that I voted ‘support’ for his wide-angle nomination, below (another day, another Chicago picture to vote on). I must say though, that within its genre, this one actually has sunlight, interesting shadow across the street, interesting reflections off the face of the building, and blue sky; all of which is a big improvement over some nominations lately that were taken on drab, overcast days. I’m certain there must be equally well lit, more interesting buildings in interesting and exotic locations (Thailand?) than this to put on the Main Page for a day. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you blame a person for having town spirit? He even said he's part of WikiProject Chicago. --I'ḏ♥One 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "Exotic" is relative. As a someone from a farming village in Blighty, downtown Chicago feels a million miles away to me. Equally, we have contributors from Thailand, for whom your "exotic" buildings are just part of every day life. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It must be REALLLY hard to take a good picture of a building, because I've not seen one yet that has the "wow" factor for it for me. The cityscapes, like the one below of the Chicago River, is quite interesting due to the environment. But just a drab shot of a building does not do it for me. I think to do a building like this justice you need to shoot it in such a way that it's not distorted, and tilted. Probably means shot from the roof of another building half it's height or window halfway up a building across the street, with fairly good camera and lenses. This one, just doesn't seem "the best" we have. — raekyT 01:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not tilted or distorted, that's just natural perspective with natural vanishing point. Tony seems to have some kind of software that can skew an image of a building to appear as though you're looking at it straight-on instead of looking toward its top. --I'ḏ♥One 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm aware it's a natural optic effect, but it's, in my opinion, not the best way to represent a building where that effect is maximized. — raekyT 02:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely a valuable picture of the building, but as stated before, it must be really difficult to take a good picture of a building from below. The angle on this just seems a bit odd naturally, and it's not very eye catching. Keep it up though. -- bydand•talk 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks almost snapshotty to me. The composition of the building really puts me off this one. JFitch (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)