Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake and Chicago

Lake and City
Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 22:36:41 (UTC)
 * Reason:Interesting view of Chicago relationship with water on the largest fresh water system in the world
 * Articles in which this image appears:Beaches of Chicago Lake Michigan, also French, Polish and Occitan Pedias
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Flicker account


 * Support as nominator --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there's a slight crop needed: check the lower left-hand corner. There's a similar error in the upper right, but that one can be fixed with digital editing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Love it. Beautiful panorama. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, there are a few technical glitches such as pointed out by Adam Cuerden above. The horizon is also not perfectly level (it is higher on the left than the right). The brightness of the image is not uniform; the middle portion of the sky is clearly brighter and the left 2/5 of the water is darker for no reason. Secondly, the extremely wide aspect ratio of the image does not lend itself well to effective placement in an article. Thirdly, the technical standard of the image is simply of middling quality by today's standards - the pixel resolution of the height is but 1000 px and viewing it at full resolution reveals that it is not terribly sharp at all. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of that, and also I note a stitching error on the horizon at the far left, right where the sailboat is, but the variance in water color could well be genuine, as the shallower bits tend to appear darker on a bright sunny day (I've spent a fair amount of time staring at this particular stretch of lake, including some from this very spot, so I'm pretty familiar with it). Chick Bowen 01:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The water color does appear genuine.  Different water color for different depths and currents by the breakwater, and the play of light. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, poor lighting. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image indeed looks amazing, but the focus seems to be very oddly placed. It makes everything we'd usually look for in the picture to be fuzzy, reducing the possible EV that this image would hold for chicago or the beach: the focus makes the concrete wall the main element on the image, and the shot contradicts this approach. The effect is quite impressive, indeed, if we are trying to make an artistic image, but this artistic approach has an encyclopedic cost. — ΛΧΣ  21  06:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's the water that matters: Nature and "Nature's Metropolis". It seems such an easily forgotten or overlooked perspective on urbanization and natural resource. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. In that case, it has an elevated EV, but I'd still complain a bit about the concrete wall at the left. I will download and crop it and see if that element is removed, the value improves. — ΛΧΣ  21  15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to crop it and add what I did for evaluation. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ  21  15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think cropping off that much ruins a lot of the value unnecessarily (and still leaves the upper right black spot.) Isn't that a flood defense? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it actually ends right where the photographer was standing. It's a breakwater for the beach. The larger question here depends on what the picture is supposed to represent. These broad, stitched panoramas tend to make perspective confusing. This one makes the city look like an island. Chick Bowen 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you are both right about this breakwater being also a defense against flooding, which is the cause of beach erosion, which is why they built a curved breakwater.  It is also man-made intervention into the lake.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose regarding the nominated image and strong oppose regarding the crop. The original composition is impressive as it invites the viewer to walk along the quay to the panorama of the city. However, there are far too many glitches in this picture. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both. I agree exactly with AFBorchert - I love the composition of the original, and feel that the crop is too heavy - surely by just trimming the left and bottom of the picture slightly would be enough to remove the problem - no reason to completely cut a huge chunk of the picture off... But the original just has too many errors... gaz hiley  12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)