Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goldstein Alumni and Faculty Center

Goldstein Alumni and Faculty Center

 * Reason:Self-nomination, this building has a lot of history in it with Syracuse University. The image is high quality and encyclopedic. The image has good contrast and color balance as well as adding great value to the article it belongs too.  I believe this image fully meets the FPC criteria and should be therefore considered for the honor of being FP. My only complaint is the flag pole in the image, but there is no way to get this quality of a picture without it there. Besides that, I do not believe the flag pole detracts from the image, but rather enhances it by adding to the location of where the image was taken.
 * Articles this image appears in:List of Syracuse University buildings
 * Creator:ZeWrestler


 * Support as nominator ZeWrestler   Talk 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I may support a better reshoot. This one has flat lighting and awkward composition.   Durova Charge! 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would improve make the composition less "awkward"-- ZeWrestler  Talk 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be tough to get a good angle on this structure because of the hill. I suggest examining official campus publications where it's been shot professionally and determining where the photographer stood.  You might wind up at a window of another campus structure using a zoom lens.  Try to do this either early or late on a day with less haze in the air.  That could require a tripod if you end up with a really long lens.  The conditions for this shoot would have been fine for outdoor portraiture, but they obscure the architectural details.  Also that tree in the foreground interferes with about 70% of the facade and the flagpole breaks up the side wall.  I'd try a different angle if possible, and frame/crop closer.  Durova Charge! 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the verticals aren't vertical. The building is leaning to the right. I make support a reshoot, though. Clegs (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose slanted, too much sky, too much foreground, not clear enough- this picture has none of the qualities one looks for in a FPRudy Breteler (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "...as well as adding great value to the article it belongs too." This is used solely in a list, not a proper article, where it's one of over 30 tiny images at a whopping 50px wide - how is that adding "great value"? As I've said on a couple of recent noms, no images solely used in lists amongst squillions of similar images add much value. Honestly, if they were adding value they would be in a real article, whether it be about this building or about the university itself. And I will keep repeating this until the message gets across. --jjron (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Clegs and washed-out colours. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)