Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leonhard Building

Leonhard Building


I understand this isn't the Eiffel Tower or anything, but I don't think it's going to be possible to get a picture of this subject that's much better than this one. Suggestions on how to do so are welcome, however. I have the original TIF, so if there are JPEG artifacts or something like that, they should be fixable. Illustrates Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering.


 * Self-nominate and support. - Spangineer[es] (háblame)  04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Dullsville, baby. I'm sorry but this picture has no chance of passing. Now that there is a featured picture visible on the front page every day and we're really getting alot more 'meh' pictures here I propose we put a note at the top of the page STRONGLY urging potential submitters to look through already featured pictures, see what's FP 'material' before they post one thier own. --Deglr6328 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you're right, this is a rather boring picture, but if this is the way that FPC runs here, why do we bother? Aren't we just duplicating the effort of commons:COM:FPC?  The only nominal difference I can see is that images here must appear in an article, but that's easily solved for virtually anything by jamming the picture into a semi-relevant article.  Wouldn't a model consistent with FAC be preferred, where any subject that isn't deletable be potentially featurable?  We're here to write an encyclopedia, not create an image gallery.  The images we feature should be the ones that best describe articles, not necessarily the ones that are the most beautiful. The main page issue is a potential concern, obviously, but again, why not just use the commons POTD for that purpose? I have a feeling I'm proposing a radical shift in the way WP:FPC works, so I'll stop now =). Anyway, sorry for wasting people's time, but in my four previous FPCs, I've never had one rejected for not being interesting.  I guess I thought this was more like FAC than it really is. —Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe, as you say, it is not possible to get a better picture of this building. But This building is uninteresting and unimpressive. To be featured, not only must the picture be well composed, but the subject should of some interest. Glaurung 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dull subject, just a building. --Janke | Talk 10:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, this a really nice pic, dead upright, well-exposed etc. but just not special enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement; I'll plan on continuing to attempt to take excellent pictures of boring subjects, but you won't see me any more on FPC =). —Spangineer[es] (háblame)  21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be annoyed, FP is for pictures that are a bit special. Your pic has no faults at all as a picture but it's not special to me. I have to judge if it agrees with the FP criteria and I (and the responders here) don't think it does. Don't take the FP process too seriously, only 5 of us have commented out of the worlds population of 6,500,000,000 so not much of a sample! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, I'm not annoyed; my pride isn't hurt at all. No one has said that the picture is bad or whatever, it's just that no one is interested.  Can't do much about that. —Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  11:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a photo of a building which looks like similar to buildings I see every day is not particularly exciting :) Take photos of unique buildings, for instance, and you have more chance of support. chowells 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, though again, I fail to see the difference between WP:FPC and COM:FPC. But don't worry about it, I don't care much about FP status. The fact that people think the picture itself is good is enough approval for me.—Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a great overlap between COM:FPC and WP:FPC, but I don't see why this is a problem. WP:FP might almost be thought of as a subset of COM:FP: those pictures aesthetically striking enough to deserve Featured Status, which also make a significant encyclopedic contribution ~ Veledan • Talk 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing too special, like other people have said. -- Thorpe | talk 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support I agree with the nominator. We must be careful not to turn FP into an art exhibition where an informative photo of a boring topic has no chance to be featured.  I think we have to judge primarily on (1) informative (2) technically excellent execution, incluidng composition, exposture, etc. (distant 3rd) how striking or unique the subject matter is.  As the nominator says, it would be very difficult to take a better picture of this subject: no distracting cars or people, sky is not quite bland yet doesn't distract from building...  There is just that one shadow to the right, and a slight wide angle effect on the vertical walls.  Worthy of FP in my opinion. Johntex\talk 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Building is average, picture is superb. I think this is featureworthy.-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too boring... Bertilvidet 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm opposing not becuase of its boring subject, but becuase the picture isn't eye catching or striking in any way, which is criteria for a featured picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spizzma (talk • contribs)
 * Strong oppose I can't see any reason whatever in favour of this candidate. The building is architectually uninspired; the photo itself in no way exceptional. If the building were the site of some exceptional important discovery, that might add lustre. But (as near as I can tell), it is in no way distinguished from similar facilities at any universities in the United States. --Philopedia 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sorry, but I don't think this meets any of the feature criteria.  Even the most masterful photography (and this comes close) can only do so much with a prosaic subject.  I&#39;m a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it is a pretty good picture, I wouldn't go as far as calling it superb. To nit-pick a bit: it could use some slight perspective correction (while the left edges of the building are perfectly vertical, the right edges lean to the left). Also the resolution is good, not superb. We had some recent examples which warrant this distinction. --Dschwen 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)