Chicago skyline

Reason

Very beautiful picture, high quality image, has a very good meaning.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago

Creator

Hequals2henry

• Support as nominator --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and suggest reverting back to the photo (File:2010-02-19 16500x2000 chicago skyline panorama.jpg) that was originally in the Chicago article. Gives a much better view of the skyline, without being overly processed. Also, the size you have in the article right now is way too wide for a non-panoramic picture [1]. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:2010-02-19 16500x2000 chicago skyline panorama.jpg is an unsharp mess of a panorama. --Dschwen 04:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too stylised, and agree it's probably not even a great image for the article for that reason. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not 'too stylised' but 'stylised' probably. It gives a great view of how beautiful Chicago looks. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:FP?: "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." The stylised nature of the image may add to its artistic value, but detracts from its encyclopedic value. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above, but I have to say that I find this kind of angle more convenient than a skyline panorama. It gives a better idea of the relative position of the buildings. It just happens that the right and the lower left are too dark. Abisharan (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would be a great picture if what we were looking for was "artsy"ness, but as an encyclopedic image, it falls short. Tops of major buildings are cut off (in a way that makes me think San Francisco, even though I don't personally know if fog does that in SF) thereby making them not as easy to identify (the Hancock in particular is savaged, given how its antennae have been an unchanging part of its image since its erection, unlike the antennae of the Sears Tower). Also, the lighting again is very artistic but not very expository (am I using that word right?). All in all, not only should it not be an FP, it should, as User:Jujutacular states, be replaced in the article. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not really encyclopedic enough for WP, the old chicago panoramic should be restored. Astuishin ^(talk) 06:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like something out of a film promo rather than a encyclopedic image... Too processed... too bright at top, too dark around lower sides... Nice picture but not for FP... Gazhiley (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]