Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Union Station

Chicago Union Station

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 04:48:19 (UTC)

Reason: It is a very good picture. It was featured on Commons,Turkish,German, and Croatian wikipedia also it was a featured picture on Trains Portal. It has EV for Chicgao Union station. It feels weird to nominate a Chicago image because usually Tony nominates them.
Articles in which this image appears: Union Station (Chicago), History of Chicago, Basic concepts of quantum mechanics
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Jack Delano

Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this image is relevant to Basic concepts of quantum mechanics why isn't it in Wave–particle duality near a section so that I can understand its EV to that subject matter. I don't understand the scientific significance of the image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why its in that article. I think the light coming from the windows is something scientific. Im not really good with science so i dont know what to do about that. Spongie555 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you track down the edit where it was added to the article. I want to see if I can bend the ear of the person who did so to understand what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They were probably thinking about the double-slit experiment when adding, but it doesn't really illustrate that at all. Jujutacular ^talk 16:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Whatever the picture's technical or artistic merits, it has no EV for the articles it's in.--RDBury (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have EV because it shows Chicago Union Station during WWII in 1943 when it was at its busiest (yes it is busy just this picture it doesn't look like it, if you look behind there are people). Idk about the EV for Basic concepts of quantum mechanics but it does have EV for the main article. Spongie555 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I would like to argue for EV, it does not teach me what Union Station looks like. I can neither tell its exterior architecture nor interior decor. I can not see the busy traffic. It is not depicting a typical view of the station. I can not even tell what the uniforms of the officials look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to what I read this is the waiting room of the station and not the main hall. But it is a very good picture for its time, to me the light coming in gives it an effect. On Commons the nominator who promoted it there said that it has good details because you could see the people in the back waiting (well it's in the waiting room), you could read the wartime poster which advertised not to waste transportation. I can see a little of the uniform but mostly on the guy facing towards the camera. Spongie555 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. * Oppose Per RDBury. Greg L (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pretty, but no EV, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is this photo supposed to be showing? Who are these people? What are they doing? --I'ḏ ♥One 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo is showing light coming into a the Chicago Union Station waiting room. It shows officers in uniform and people waiting in the backround. It is Union Station during WWII(wartime poster in the background) when it was at its busiest(it is busy but this picture isnt probably slow day but i dont know). Also i think it has EV beacuse it shows the station in WWII. Spongie555 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo certainly has EV for Jack Delano and Farm Security Administration. That said, the three scans available for the picture are among the most atrocious the LOC has ever posted on their website. I'd wait until they post a better quality version. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you commented on the wrong nomination Spongie555 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. This is one of Jack Delano's best known photos for the FSA, viz here. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i didnt know that. If any voters want to re look at the nomination for that it would be appreciated. Spongie555 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - I didn't understand the encyclopedic value of this image until Trialsanderrors explained it above. I adore this photo. I have to concede that even the best of the available scans, in the Library of Congress Flickr stream, could probably be improved upon -- however, I am not holding my breath for the LoC to rescan its entire holdings at higher resolution. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a version of the negative scan at File:Chicago_Union_Station_fsa.8d24901u.jpg (the unedited LOC scan is in the file history). Other than being one of the worst large-size LOC scans I know, it also has multiple blown highlights, especially visible in the window grid. Normally we should try to use a negative scan rather than a print scan, but in this case they both have serious deficiencies. That's why I said I'm hoping for a better scan. This might have a better chance than others since it's considered one of the highlights of the FSA-OWI collection. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer the version nominated here. Although it's a smaller resolution than either the original or your edit, it preserves much more detail. Many of the finer shadows in your processed version have been reduced to silhouettes. For all that, I think the original scan is superior to either version -- I don't think overprocessing this image does it any favors. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]