Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Blackhawks Grant Park pano

Chicago Blackhawks Grant Park pano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 00:04:45 (UTC)

Reason: This is a very unique, high quality, high EV image. It is unfortunate that for some reason only half of the buildings that usually celebrate Chicago franchise playoff success were lit. The Aon Center (Chicago), One Prudential Plaza and Two Prudential Plaza also have a history of using lighting celebrate success, but were not lit the night after the Stanley Cup. (N.B.: I just looked at my Feb 2007 images of the skyline from when the Bears made it to the Super Bowl and neither Prudential Building was lit. However, the Aon Center had the word BEARS in large vertical script. My memory may be wrong about the Pru buildings from the early 2000s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season
~~Smurfit-Stone Building~~
CNA Center
~~Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower~~
~~Petrillo Music Shell~~
Chicago Blackhawks
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprise Surprise, something I can support. You should probably link this on Chicago, Illinois, Midwestern United States, Grant Park (Chicago), and every building visible in that picture that has an article, why hold back? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Topic Discussion 1

- Please don't encourage him! Though I agree, this could easily (in Tony's world) add EV to grass, path, street lights, cloud, office, apartment, etc............Gazhiley (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now I am having trouble convincing one editor that it belongs in 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season (It was removed for several hours yesterday).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet you still continue to ignore people's advice?! It was probably removed because although this was taken during that season, this doesn't have anything to do with that season as it is not demonstrating a sport... It's a freaking skyline for heaven's sake... Take the hint... PLEASE! Saying that this picture represents a sporting season is like me taking a picture of my city and saying it represents the season my local team have just finished... It's co-incidence, no more than that! Gazhiley (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - People here are free to say it has no EV in its main use if they like, but it is a Chicago tradition to celebrate a successful season (playoffs) with skyline building messages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Gotta love the "you don't live in Chicago thus your opinion doesn't matter" argument. Classic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I made that argument on an image that was being removed from Chicago 'L' articles, but have not made it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And, "People here are free to say it has no EV in its main use if they like, but it is a Chicago tradition," is not saying "your welcome to your opinion but if you lived in Chicago you'd know it was tradition" ? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are reading a bit much into my statement, but when I want to be obnoxious, you will know it. That is a simple statement that people will express their opinion on whether it is relevant, but IMO it is a Chicago tradition that we have finally captured in a high quality image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's only one building with a message though isn't it? It may be relevant to show a shot featuring that building in the Hawk's season article, but there's absolutely no reason you would include a panorama of the whole skyline. This is the same thing I said below in the pano of Cologne - panos should only be used sparingly. --jjron (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Spoke too soon, it's more than one building on closer look, but it's hard to see until you zoom in, thus of limited use in that article. You should be able to see this stuff as used in the article. (Seems the article editor shares this sentiment.) --jjron (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think we should crop out the CNA Tower. Are you missing the logo on the left?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green. Abisharan (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a criticism of the color balance? Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That grass needs some blue. It looks like coming from another planet, one without atmosphere. Abisharan (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make tint adjustments. So I will wait for the creator who seems to be watching FPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. I know it's a night shot, and applaud that. But much of the shot is either slight underexposed or blown out, and there's really too much sky. It's a good shot considering the range of light conditions, but not quite there. It's encyclopedic value is undeniable, and I feel bad opposing despite this. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop a little bit of the sky out (I think the rule of thirds would work here), and I could support. Although it's not visible here on enwiki, image notes added to the Commons image description page would be nice for documenting the Blackhawks supporting lights. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you think should be on the bottom and/or top third lines?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the english description. Not able to do the German.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant for you to add these: Commons:Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. As for the bottom third line, no need to be ultra-exact. Somewhere around the tree line. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is going to be adjusted for blue tint, spots and thirds, wouldn't any of the gadgetry be wasted. Isn't that something you do once you have settled on a final file version? As for the third, I will attempt to wait for the Dschwen. The tree line is not a straight line because the pano is capturing the north-south streewall south of the Smurfit Stone building and the east-west streetwall east of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As long as the position of the things in the photograph doesn't change, then they'll still line up, and even if he does crop it, it's just a simple matter of dragging them to reposition, fairly trivial. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a few red and blue spots of what look like artifacts, particularly on the right end of the image, they certainly aren't stars as they appear on the trees as well. Theres quite a lot on the grass as well, I also thought the white dots in the sky were stars but these must be the same as they too are present on the grass. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 08:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed these too; can these be cloned out? They are about 4 px square in size, and I'm sure they aren't stars- one of them was purple. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll definitely remove those, please give me some time. I'll work from the uncompressed original. --Dschwen 00:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks gorgeous. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally Neutral. Pending color correction and annotations. NauticaShad es 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the textured sky in this shot. A pity the lights are overexposed but the effect is quite nice really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient EV. Agree with Mostlyharmless, as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on placement

Comment: I removed this image from Smurfit-Stone Building, Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower and Petrillo Music Shell. There is no reason it should be in those articles, especially with the amount of better images those articles all already have. Feel free to put the picture in their respective commons' categories, however. --Torsodog^Talk 01:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which better images are in Petrillo Music Shell?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As flattered as I am that you like my half-arsed images in Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, this image is pretty essential to that article although it is deficient textwise in describing the night time message tradition of this building. I would rather you removed some of my mediocre images in the article that I would be ashamed to nominate for VPC than that you remove this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony do you really think the nominated image is better for Petrillo Music Shell than these images? Please take the advice. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec)It is not superior to the main image. However, it is probably better than the dreary one in terms of depicting the lawn space. Neither of those shows any lawn. Thus, this one serves as important illustration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, Torsodog. I don't think this image has EV in any of the articles it's in. The individual buildings are all far too small in this image for it to be useful in those articles. It's probably worth removing it from CNA Center as well since File:Cna_gobears.jpg or File:Go_cubs.jpg do a better job of showing the lighting. As for the Blackhawks articles, it's an okay addition, but I don't find it particularly useful. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you replace an elaborate logo with simple text. Those simple text examples of the CNA lighting are the poorest representation of their artistry I have seen. Any CNA building one without a logo is not so hot. Get one with a Bears or Cubs logo and that would replace this. Simple text is pretty weak.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because of the focus of the picture: this is a panorama covering many buildings. For those unfamiliar with the subjects, we have no idea which building is the one referred to in the articles. Those other images are a bit worse technical quality - but are more suited for their respective articles because of their composition. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right or wrong, all of the tallest buildings in Chicago and several others have panos to complement the compositionally speicific images. For the BCBST and CNA building this pano serves an additional purpose of illustration for a distinguishing role of the buildings. If you were at either article with several pictures accurately depicting it, it would be hard for me to believe you have "no idea which building is the one referred to" All of the buildings have panos for the purpose of depicting the building in the skyline. Most tall buildings are well served by a pano that complements specific subject images. I do not think it is better, but it is complementary. Since the CNA building discusses the tradition of lighting the building, it is good to understand what that looks like to the majority of folks who see it while driving along Lake Shore Drive without high powered zoom lenses. This pano shows the by far most common view of the lighting. Probably 50 times as many people see the lighting from a distance while driving on LSD than see it close up as you are depicting it. However, an elaborate article has room for both and a stub article should have images like File:Cna_gobears.jpg or File:Go_cubs.jpg in a gallery.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        BCBS had THREE panoramas of the Chicago skyline before I removed two of them. You don't find that absurd? For an article about a single building, more than one panorama is completely ridiculous. --Torsodog^Talk 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In an effort to talk cogently about the BCBST, don't you think there should be some illustration of its lighting tradition? A pano showing that is not really redundant with a standard daylight pano, IMO--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What was your reasoning for not wanting a photo depicting the Petrillo lawn?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please, Tony. You know I never said I don't want a picture of the lawn in the article. What I said was I don't want a terrible image of the lawn in the article. I went ahead and took a picture of the lawn where it is actually visible and the focus of the image instead of a dark, hidden afterthought. To all, sorry to semi-high-jack this nom, but we should be all good now! --Torsodog^Talk 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. That is a useful image. Is it possible to reformat this image as a .jpg. Wikipedia does not sharpen thumbs of .pngs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem. And is that so? I never knew that. That's good to know! --Torsodog^Talk 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

II just discovered it this weekend when working on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Demetri McCamey signals a play‎. I asked at WT:FPC and got some explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. my concerns are assuaged on the removal of this from the PMS. However, would you care to respond to the BCBST. You live right there a block away and see the lighting all the time. You know it is an important element it is to the complete description of the building. Having at least one image of it lit seems to me to be essential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the discussion in the box above might be irrelevant to this nomination, but I think it raises important points about the EV of this image. Can we get some more opinions on this one, please? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another user raised this issue at Talk:2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season#Skyline panorama. He says "...its [sic] a neat picture, it just doesn't add any value to the article." Makeemlighter (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on EV grounds. In less than a week this is down to just three out of the original six articles it was shoved into. Of the three remaining, it stands out like a sore thumb in Chicago Blackhawks and I doubt it will last there long. Editors at 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season have already said they don't want it. Given that half the CNA Center is cutoff and that building is just a tiny part of the image, I don't see it having much EV there, and also doubt it will last; the article is now too pano heavy and better images of the lights displaying messages were recently shunted and dumped on the talkpage. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if I may. Those were pretty difficult mixed lighting conditions. The yellow hue comes from the low color temperature of teh street lighting. --Dschwen 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 S, 2.5 O -> Promoted File:Chicago Grant Park night pano.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]