Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Central Terminal video

Grand Central Terminal video

 * Reason:I think this is a first-of-its-kind video for its subject type and manner of composition; it is a sophisticated multi-shot video architectural tour produced and edited by Gabrielm199, who is one of the Wikimedia New York City interns, for our Lights Camera Wiki initiative. Unfortunately Commons has a 100 MB limit, but until that is increased a high-res version is available on the Internet Archive under the same license.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Grand Central Terminal
 * Creator:Gabrielm199


 * Support as nominator --Pharos (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note -- I just changed the video's thumbnail in the Grand Central article, using the thumb-time parameter. The new thumbnail is much more interesting. The underlying video is the same. I raise this point here, because reviewers may fail to spot the video in the GSS article, because the thumbnails are currently different. It's currently in Grand_Central_Terminal. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great EV and seems like acceptable quality given the file size limits. Fletcher (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but a couple comments - the panning of essentially flat elements is not that helpful. It makes me wish I just had a photo, because the video aspect isn't actually improving my understanding over a photo. Also, I think narration would be very helpful. Especially when new elements come on screen, I sometimes have little to no idea of how it fits into the overall building. (I see there is a guideline against this in the project page, but I think this is misguided - if internationalization is a concern, commentary can simply be removed and replaced by another language.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I expected this to be a narrated overview of a number of the architectural aspects of the terminal. However, it seems it is just a couple sweeping scenes of small features chosen by (assumedly) the author. Something with narration, actually describing what is seen, possibly with some history, would be really nice. Right now the choices are seemingly random and no explanation is given for any of them.  upstate NYer  18:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What sort of narration - do you mean repeating information that is covered in the article, or do you think a videographer should have to do additional research beyond what a still photographer would have to do? Fletcher (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to make narration a requirement when this has not been required of videos or any other media before, and when a serious case has been made for this guideline on internationalization grounds. BTW, the choice of areas filmed was designed to follow those aspects of the architecture that are actually covered in the Grand Central Terminal article (see Videos).--Pharos (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty clear case where a still photograph or two can do a better job. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like this, but I don't think it adds any more to the article than a few photos could. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)