Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nathan Phillips Square

Nathan Phillips Square
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 09:13:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:Strong EV, great shot
 * Articles in which this image appears:Nathan Phillips Square
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Paolostefano1412


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination!-- Paolo Costa  15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good clean quality, interesting mix of architecture...  gaz hiley  22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty good quality, well framed for such a busy place. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything the Commons FPC voters, myself included, said. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I keep wanting to support this, in terms of effort and quality, but just can't. I find the distortions too disturbing - this is really much too close to the surrounding buildings to take in a 180° panorama (the buildings at image left are on the same straight road as those on image right, yet we're looking face-on at both of them). Old City Hall (Toronto) is very uncomfortably warped, and the Square itself gets a really weird shape (spend a bit of time reconciling it with this 'straight' image of the Square for example; in fact I spent quite some time trying to work out what I was actually looking at using several other articles/images and Google Maps and street view before I really felt sure what was in this and where it had been taken from). I'm also not entirely convinced about the colours. Maybe if you want people spending ages trying to figure out what this place really looks like this is a good prompter, but the distortions kills the EV for me. Something a bit less ambitious in terms of angle of view would IMO come up more pleasant and informative. --jjron (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per my commons statement and the fact it takes quite a bit more than a wide angle persepctive to disturb me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per SaffronBlaze. Clegs (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I like the wide angle perspective. Color and clarity are good. Pinetalk 06:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Distortions aren't distracting, at least not when viewed in the larger format. Illustrates the subject in a great way.126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded. O.J. (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - See Jjron. Askalan (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8S, 2O, anon not counted. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)