Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Simmon-hall-mit-boston-usa.jpg
Simmon-hall-mit-boston-usa.jpg[edit]
I just thought this picture was striking, improves the articles, and so on. Although it's kinda confusing where's sky, where's not, it's a nice picture. Taken by ReneS (Rene Schwietzke) used in Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't find it striking; the repetitiveness in the windows gives it a rather ordinary look. also, its artificiality is a little too apparent. Enochlau 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too repetitive like Enochlau said. There isn't much to see except squares of windows. • Thorpe • 11:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Boring. -Lommer | talk 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. ditto. Is this a picture or a computer generated image? --Fir0002 04:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know for a fact, but I assume it's the side of the building. you can see curtains in some of the windows. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is featured pictures, not puzzles. -- Longhair | Talk 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think it's great. I love the geometry and the colours. It reminds me of a Mondrian. (oops, I forgot to sign). --Silversmith Hewwo 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think it's great too. Ericd 21:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I like that sort of symmetry and grid effect. Looks really clean. --Bash 08:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like the style of the photograph, although the rotated alignment seems a little perverse. However, we already have one FP of a post modern building on the MIT campus. Also the Simmons Hall isn't much discussed in the text, so I'm not sure it does add that much to the article. -- Solipsist 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't know if this is a computer drawing or photograph, either way round it's very boring - Adrian Pingstone 18:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - orientation is confusing. which way is up? Kaldari 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The sky must be up, no? -- WB 11:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- In this case I don't think the sky is up. I think the pic is just taken high up the building, where you can see the sky to the side (Note the curtains). But I could be wrong. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- To be fair, I guess the point of the rotated frame of reference is to get you to concentrate on the pattern and symmetries of the facade - which it succeeds in doing. If you stare straight up in New York, you can get this sort of sideways verticle view point almost anywhere. But sometimes going for the artistic effect, obscures the subject a little too much. -- Solipsist 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at this picture from a diferrent point of view, it is viewing up (the sky). If you see my above comment to Arpingstone, the building isn't that high up anyway. -- WB 23:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- To be fair, I guess the point of the rotated frame of reference is to get you to concentrate on the pattern and symmetries of the facade - which it succeeds in doing. If you stare straight up in New York, you can get this sort of sideways verticle view point almost anywhere. But sometimes going for the artistic effect, obscures the subject a little too much. -- Solipsist 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In this case I don't think the sky is up. I think the pic is just taken high up the building, where you can see the sky to the side (Note the curtains). But I could be wrong. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, boring. Phoenix2 01:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted 4 / 9 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
