Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center

Ratner Athletic Center

 * Reason:This is a high EV image that failed at Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center.
 * Articles this image appears in:Architectural engineering Gerald Ratner Athletics Center Counterweight High-tech architecture Contemporary architecture
 * Creator:Bryan Chang


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose VPC is not a FPC consolation prize. Very limited EV in most of the article's placements even Gerald Ratner Athletics Center. — raeky ( talk 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh god, not only has this been reinserted in counterweight since I removed it a few days ago, it's now been shoved into yet another article since it's FPC nom. Jeez Louise! --jjron (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear left hand, This is your right hand speaking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Comment. BTW, it may be time for you to go and read Systemic bias. This spamming of your images is really starting to violate that, and possibly WP:NPOV. For example, fully three out of five photos in the High-tech architecture article are now from Chicago, and with this stuff scattered around all the other architecture and related articles, that's hardly representing a worldwide view of these topics. --jjron (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested feed back on the placement of this article in both High-tech architecture and Chicago school (architecture), with no feedback. If there is any doubt that this is an example of high-tech architecture let me know.  Probably other less clear examples should be removed from that article before this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It hardly jumps out as high-tech, at least from this angle. It just looks like a pretty standard modern sports building to me and would to anyone else accessing the article (I'll note there are (at least) compositionally better photos of even this building in its own article, so I don't know why you're so hung up on this one). It is eminently replaceable by many other far more high-tech looking buildings, or by better photos of other similar buildings. I know little about architecture, and I'm guessing you don't either - reading this article it would appear this building, apart from being a bland example, doesn't even fit the description: "Buildings designed in this style usually consist of a clear glass facade, with the building's network of support beams exposed behind it". The Ratner article says: "The building is said to interpret gothic architecture through structural expressionism", again indicating it's not done in the 'high-tech' style. The César Pelli article doesn't mention that he works in this style. In fact, based on this interpretation, I am going to remove it from that article. --jjron (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to argue, but I am unable to clearly demonstrate that it is high tech. Since I am unsure I will let your change stand.  However, I am puzzled why you would revert to having edit button bunching at high res viewing options.  I think you over reverted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support image for quality, neutral as to EV because I don't know this building. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)