Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/July-2010

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

For promoted entries, add {{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
For entries not promoted, add {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

	Archives
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Barack and Michelle Obama[edit]

Reason: This is a good black and white of the first couple that failed at WP:FPC in March 2008 (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack & Michelle Obama). It is used in Michelle Obama.
Articles this image appears in: Michelle Obama
Black-and-white
Family of Barack Obama
Creator: Luke Vargas (flickr user vargas2040), edit 1 by Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't appear in African American nor did it on the day of the nomination. --Elekhh (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what happened.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago L Map[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV illustration that depicts essential information that is instructive in each article in which it is used.
Articles this image appears in: Chicago 'L'
Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Orange Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Green Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Purple Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Pink Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
The Loop (CTA)
List of Chicago 'L' stations
South Side (Chicago)
Creator: BorgHunter

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very clear diagram and in use in many articles, however I am a bit disturbed by the cyan blue used for the lake. I find it too harsh and also inconsistent with other similar maps like this, with a much more pleasant blue. Another tiny issue is that the station name labels have a white background over the water which is disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonita Lattimore[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image in its primary use. It is a bit overcropped, but in terms of EV it is there.
Articles this image appears in: Jonita Lattimore
Grant Park Music Festival
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone until OTRS is received, otherwise it will be deleted. If proper OTRS is received, then I can support it, notable enough person, great quality, wouldn't be far fetched to consider for FPC actually (let others chime in on that though)... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually zooming in, there is some contrast issues and streaking probably from a bad scanner, would need some GL love, wouldn't hurt to post at the GL while you wait on OTRS. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nomination withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Mezcala Bridge[edit]

Reason: High res, very educational. Some technical issues kept it from promotion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mezcala Bridge
Articles this image appears in: Mezcala Bridge
Creator: Photographed and stitched by Jujutacular, edited by Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is being the main image in one article really enough to constitute EV for VP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, yes. The valued picture criteria says nothing about requiring use in more than one article (let alone the FP criteria). Four ([1] [2] [3] [4]) of the last 12 valued pictures promoted are only used in one article. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Jujutacular. Usage in multiple articles is often a good indicatior of high EV, but not exclusive condition for VP. --Elekhh (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support if the article were included in any of the following Balsas River, any geographical article about the location of this bridge, an article about the mountains in the picture, an article about this type of bridge, the article Suspension bridge types. I would also support with a proper explanation why the image does not belong in any of these articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish I could tell from the main article whether this is a Cable-stayed bridge, Self-anchored suspension bridge or Suspension bridge. I don't fault the nominator, but since he is interested in this topic it would be interesting if it could be clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added to Balsas River. Adding to Suspension bridge types would be inappropriate as it is not a suspension bridge. It is a cable-stayed bridge, as was already noted in the article (I have added a wikilink). Jujutacular ^T · C 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support - Seems to be a useful picture that depicts encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great panorama. One article is all that is needed for adequate EV. NauticaShad es 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously very good image with high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mezcala Bridge - Mexico edit1.jpg --Courcelles (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic view of BP Pedestrian Bridge[edit]

Reason: The EV of this image is due to its archaic nature. The Chicago skyline photography is defined by three locations. The most classic photography of it comes from the Adler Planetarium (See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline at sunrise‎ where several examples exist) and from observation decks at Willis Tower and Hancock Center. As WP:CHICAGO director who stumbles across a lot of Chicago photography, these are the three iconic views of the city's architecture. This particular 2007 view no longer exists (see File:WillisTowerPanorama01.jpg which shows how Legacy Tower impedes the view). Although the Willoughby Tower seems to impede the view of the rest of Millennium Park, it serves as a reminder that this is a view from within one of the world's most phenomenal skylines. Its highest EV uses a cropped version of this image. Since Willoughby Tower predates the Bridge by several decades, the view was never unimpeded. This article recently failed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archaic view of BP Pedestrian Bridge.
Articles this image appears in: Millennium Park
Jay Pritzker Pavilion
Columbus Drive (Chicago)
Creator: Flickr user KE4SFQ

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An image that's not even used in the first article you link to, BP Pedestrian Bridge, is hardly enough EV for the subject in addition it's buried down in Millennium Park so it's clearly not the best illustrative example for that either. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is rather disorienting: the tower is kind of cutting the image in two parts, its long shadow is distracting, and the roofscape in the foreground is cropped haphazardly. --Elekhh (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Grady[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image that not only illustrates the player, but is useful in American football protective equipment and related articles
Articles this image appears in: Kevin Grady
Armband
Football helmet
Winged football helmet
American football protective equipment
Creator: Peter R. Schlitt (flickr user One Raised Eyebrow)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor EV. Atrocious use in armband where it's been placed as a dominant image but doesn't even match the description in the article of armbands. It's just a piece of advertising for adidas. I'm not looking any further than that. --jjron (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have revised the text and the caption to assuage your concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. limited EV for all articles it appears in. (i.e. Kevin Grady: face not visible, Winged football helmet: not the main subject of the composition, American football protective equipment: not the whole body visible). --Elekhh (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Elekhh. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlevel view of Chicago elevated rail[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image that did not fare so well at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Streetlevel view of Chicago elevated rail.
Articles this image appears in: Chicago Loop
Chicago 'L'
Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
The Loop (CTA)
35 East Wacker
Creator: www.flickr.com user John Picken

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the exact same reasons given at FPC. VPC is NOT just a poor man's FPC for anything that can't make it there - this failed badly mainly on EV grounds, and VPC is all about EV. --jjron (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment limited EV for Chicago Loop, Chicago 'L', The Loop (CTA), 35 East Wacker... I find is an interesting illustartion of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), however not the highest possible EV probably. The image actually illustrates a section of North Wabash Avenue... --Elekhh (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To much going on, and again FPC is not a consolation prize for a failed FPC... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Courcelles (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic view of Glessner House[edit]

Reason: This is an archaic 1963 view of the John J. Glessner House that is now obscured by trees.
Articles this image appears in: John J. Glessner House
Prairie Avenue District
Prairie Avenue
Near South Side, Chicago
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois
Creator: Historic American Buildings Survey

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those "archaic" cars look good, but if the building is preserved without significant alterations than probably a higher quality present day image would have higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The cars are not archaic. They can be moved and photographed regardless of the trees.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Elekhh, a modern photograph would be far more EV then this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

333 Wacker Drive[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image
Articles this image appears in: 333 Wacker Drive
Wacker Drive
America's Favorite Architecture
Creator: The Seventh Taylor

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality and small image size, not centered in frame, and highly reproduceable. EV is not high enough to accept those flaws. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raeky. Also, a more oblique angle would be desirable. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This could obviously be cropped to be symmetric. What type of angle are your suggesting however?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An angle that is not so head-on to the face of the building. Like this instead of this (not really the best example, but I hope you get the idea). Jujutacular ^T · C 03:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a facade which is all about reflecting the surrounding environment should show a bit more of the urban context. Corner location not ledgible. --Elekhh (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President George W. Bush and Barack Obama meet in Oval Office[edit]

Reason: This is a unique fisheye effect type shot. It is a high EV image in its main use.
Articles this image appears in: Presidential transition of Barack Obama
Barack Obama
Creator: White House photographer Eric Draper

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high EV for Presidential transition of Barack Obama and I think good illustration of the oval office. It's a shame is such a low resolution. --Elekhh (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to find an image with more EV for Presidential transition of Barack Obama, and again it's a real shame it's so low quality. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A high quality version of this would make a fabulous FP, but alas. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:President George W. Bush and Barack Obama meet in Oval Office.jpg --Courcelles (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BP Pedestrian Bridge[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image, but it failed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BP Bridge
Articles this image appears in: BP Pedestrian Bridge
Millennium Park
Footbridge
Beam bridge
Creator: Torsodog

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good EV as it provides a very good overview of the bridge in its urban and infrastructure context, however its weakness is that the closest part of the bridge is completely covered by trees. It is also too tightly croped on the bottom so is unclear where it leads. Furthermore, given that it is taken from a building, it appears to be possible to re-take it in winter time, when somewhat less obstructed by foliage. --Elekhh (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Artistically, it might be less appealling to see a park defrocked of its foliage. The bridge might be more easily viewed, but the park might not look so great. Personally, I would like to see it with a white snow backtground (having grown up in Buffalo), but again most prefer green foliage and blue skies. I am not convinced that a barren view would be a preferable replacement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that This defoliated view is not used as the main image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the winter view would (a) still not provide full visibility from the same angle, (b) might be less appealing and (c) lose some EV in representing the characteristic land uses and landscape around the bridge. That's precisely the reason I am not opposing it, but neutral with a tendency to weak support. --Elekhh (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better with the greenery- less dreary and the weather and traffic make this seem so in harmony and peaceful, and I love how the Sun shines on the bridge. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1919 Black Sox[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image that for its age is pretty high quality. It is up to VP standards, although too small for FP.
Articles this image appears in: Black Sox Scandal
1919 World Series
1919 Chicago White Sox season
Chicago White Sox
Creator: unknown

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great historical image, plenty of EV. NauticaShad es 07:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Avenue Pumping Station[edit]

Reason: This is a decent picture with a quality correction that makes it acceptable as a VP given its high EV. The original edit correction was made at WP:FPC quite some time ago. If I recall correctly, the entire building can not be captured from this vantage point because of obstruction from Water Tower Place which obstructs the left side of the desired shot. See other discussions at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Avenue Pumping Station and Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Chicago Avenue Pumping Station.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Chicago Avenue Pumping Station
Old Chicago Water Tower District
Architecture of Chicago
Streeterville
Near North Side, Chicago
Magnificent Mile
List of Chicago Landmarks
Creator: self

Support either version as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice perspective, good quality and resolution, however tilted facade on the right is disturbing. I think a slightly better correction of perspective distortion is possible than the Alt so that less of the context is lost. The broad usage of the Original also demonstrates the importance of a less tight framing. --Elekhh (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new and I think better version for Alt. The previous one was excessive and wrong in that it changed the proportions of the building (reverse correction ?). Since the Alt wasn't in use since 2007 I just simply uploaded the new version on the top. What do you think? --Elekhh (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have preferred a the old alt still be available for comparison's sake, since I can't really see what the difference is between your correction and the prior one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually you can if you open it up in a separate window. The old version was I believe streching the upper part (instead of the bottom) thus making the building look narrower. It also went to full extent in getting all vertical lines parallel, which resulted in a very tight framing. But I'll remember your preference for separate file for the next time. --Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Support Alternative. Good illustration of a Chicago landmark. Good job on the proportion correction. NauticaShad es 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support Alt, but needs to replace original in at least some of the articles. --Elekhh (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if this nomination passes there will be automatic replacement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral, Isn't this the same building? If so this is a FAR more interesting and better angle of the building than this image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chicago_Water_Tower is the building across Michigan Avenue (Chicago) from this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see now, the tops of the towers are different. I'll change to neutral. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demetri McCamey Finger roll[edit]

Reason: As much as I personally like the image, it is too closely cropped for WP:FPC. However as the main image in three articles, it has a high EV.
Articles this image appears in: It serves as the main image in each of the following articles:

Layup
Finger roll
Demetri McCamey

Creator: Joshua Beckman (flickr user PhotoVandal)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Useful illustration of a layup. NauticaShad es 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tight crop affects the EV quite negatively in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama official portrait crop[edit]

Reason: This has a lot of EV. There are three versions of this image in wikimedia (see below). The two that are widely used on WP are both cropped. Although there are good reasons to crop a headshot, making the other a viable FPC, there are not really good reasons to crop the fingers off and half of the background portrait. Thus, I am seeing if this passes here.
Articles this image appears in: African American
First Lady of the United States
Office of the First Lady of the United States
List of First Ladies of the United States
Creator: Joyce N. Boghosian, White House photographer

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think is the best of the three versions. While some might argue that the uncropped version is more encyclopaedic, I think the usage of this file demonstrates that the crop is seen by the wiki community as more valuable. It removes some of the staged features of the setting, allowing a greater focus on the person. --Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Elekhh. NauticaShad es 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left: official portrait - unused on wikipedia
Center: cropped portrait used in African American, First Lady of the United States, Office of the First Lady of the United States, List of First Ladies of the United States
Right: cropped headshot used in Michelle Obama, List of Alpha Phi Omega members, Family of Barack Obama, List of First Ladies of the United States, List of current United States first spouses

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratner Athletic Center[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image that failed at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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 | edits)} 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Dear left hand, This is your right hand speaking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. BTW, it may be time for you to go and read Wikipedia: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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
Support image for quality, neutral as to EV because I don't know this building. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus McCormick engraving (2nd nomination)[edit]

Reason: Earlier today, I had nominated this at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cyrus McCormick engraving because the original image was only 640px. However, a higher resolution version has been found so I moved the nomination to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cyrus McCormick engraving where it stalled. For its age this is a quality image and it has high EV. To add some perspective here, I should note the significance of his family name to WP:CHICAGO with McCormick Place, McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, McCormick Theological Seminary, and McCormick Tribune Campus Center. Not all were named after Cyrus specifically because his great nephew Robert R. McCormick was also important to the history of the city.
Articles this image appears in: Cyrus McCormick
McCormick Theological Seminary
International Harvester
Reaper
Irish American
Creator: George Smillie

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Feel obligated to support the alt, it does add much EV to a few of the articles it's in, probably not all though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Wells and Obi Ezeh[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV action shot
Articles this image appears in: Beanie Wells
Obi Ezeh
2008 Ohio State Buckeyes football team
2008 Michigan Wolverines football team
Creator: flickr user Scott Stuart

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV would be for a portrayer shot of them, not a shot when masks on where you can't even tell who they are or what they look like. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Graham and Terrell Pryor[edit]

Reason: This is a high quality action photo that is high EV in its current uses.
Articles this image appears in: Brandon Graham (American football)
Mask
Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry
2009 Big Ten Conference football season
Terrelle Pryor
2008 Michigan Wolverines football team
Creator: flickr user scott stuart

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor usage in mask where it has been shoehorned into the article and spoiled the flow of the article. And caption is nonsense, unless his eyes are in his mouth. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are speaking about what you do not know. If Graham were not wearing the face mask Pryor's finger would likely slide up Graham's face and scratch or poke his eyes. Put your palm on your own chin and see where your fingers are, but be careful not to poke your eyes out. You will see why the face mask is protecting Graham's eyes. This is a tremendous action shot and this particular usage would be a great main image for a specific article on a Football helmet face mask.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I have also changed the word eyes to face in the WP:CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm a blithering fool that knows nothing about sports. The fact that tens of thousands of Australians around me play full contact Australian rules football and rugby every week without wearing helmets or face-masks, and somehow avoid having their eyes poked out on regular basis means nothing. Come to think of it I used to play myself, and amazingly retain undamaged eyes! :-) --jjron (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is not that getting an eye poke is common. The point is that in this illustration, it would have happened without the facemask. Obviously he would have jammed his palm under the guys chin. Where do you think his fingers would be?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if they would not have been in his eyes, they would have been in the back of his throat if not for the face mask.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asmat Papuans on the Lorentz River[edit]

Reason: One of the first encounters between Asmat people and Europeans, captured along the Lorentz River during the third South-New-Guinea expedition of 1912-13.
Articles this image appears in: Asmat people, Lorentz River
Creator: Prof. August Adriaan Pulle

Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd like a higher res picture, but this has clear historic value which makes up for a few shortcomings from my perspective. - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SS Christopher Columbus[edit]

Reason: This is an irreplaceable high EV image
Articles this image appears in: SS Christopher Columbus
Creator: Howard Freeman Sprague

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good quality historic image showing the ship in its early stage, in an ideal perspective, and in use as lead image of a FA, certainly has high EV. Is a pitty the resolution is so low. --Elekhh (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Pretty good pic, shame about the very small size - sure there's no bigger version available? Also would have thought there'd be a photo somewhere. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 4 Makeemlighter (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CTA tracks[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image. I would love to nominate this at FPC, but DOF issues abound.
Articles this image appears in: Transportation planning
Urban planning
Chicago metropolitan area
Rail transport
Creator: Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Is a good quality image and a very nice illustration of Rail transport in Chicago i.e. high educational value for Rail transport and Chicago metropolitan area. However its use in Transportation planning and Urban planning I found completely inappropriate and therefore removed from those articles (as others did before). Please note that sometimes a distracting image is worse than no image. --Elekhh (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw support in compensation of the nominator's support which IMO, based on the comments below, is unreliable in assessing the educational value of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right hand WP:GANG is starting to get annoying and illogical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- WTF. Why would you remove this image from Transportation planning and Urban planning and then say you did so as others before when this is not the case. This is the quintessential image for the transportation planning article article. Read its first sentence which says "Transportation planning is a field involved with the evaluation, assessment, design and siting of transportation facilities (generally streets, highways, footpaths, bike lanes and public transport lines)." Placing elevated train tracks in an urban setting is very much a transportation planning issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here the revert prior to mine Tony, and please consider the meaning of the word "planning". It is about designing the future, and is done with the tools of drawings and maps (i.e. plans). An image of an existing piece of infrastructure is not an illustration of planning (i.e.evaluation, assessment, design or siting). It is the result of a planning process, as any major infrastructure is. The article does not mention anywhere the Chicago Loop as an outstanding example of planning outcome, therefore its use in the article is aleatory at best. --Elekhh (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are you pointing to an edit about a different image? This image was to replace that one. If I am understanding your point it is that planning is about the future and once the intriguing plannned structures have been built we should remove them from the articles. Is that correct? IMO, no need to go beyond the article we are in where the first sentence includes the "siting of transportation facitilities." The picture is one of the more interesting sitings we have on commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Technically the two images are different, but they depict the same subject -a detail view of the Chicago Loop- which in the broad context of transportation planning, througout human history and around the globe, makes them very similar. Planning is a process, and these images do not illustrate that process in any way. Siting is the process of selecting a location (site). This process is not illustrated by these images either. --Elekhh (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        These are two entirely different compositions. The other shows an intersection and control tower as the main subject. Here the main subject is the elevated track versus ground level transportation, which is a major siting decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        oohwww, I thought I'm entitled to my oppinion but you seem to know far better, so you reintroduced it in the article again. Anyway, this is getting very tiresome, and is not the place to discuss this. Regarding VP: IMO while it IS a valuable picture for illustrating Rail transport in Chicago, it's educational value for the two main planning articles is close to zero. --Elekhh (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Using a map as the main image of transportation planning is about as logical as having a blueprint as the main image at architecture. This is an example of transportation planning, i.e., an example of how transportation facilities might be sited in an urban context. Much like one might choose an interesting building for main images in architecture and various types of architecture articles an example of planning is a good illustration for a planning article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any response to this point. I.E., what is an example of transportation planning?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I really wanted to close this discussion. I am not running away from debate, yet I am not convinced that this is constructive. I do not get the impression that you would be listening to what I say, and your repeated attempts to ridicule me are not preceived as constructive either. I did not suggest anything like using a blueprint to illustrate architecture, nor that "intriguing plannned structures that have been built should be removed from articles". IMO the image is not an illustration of planning, but of planning outcome, however there is no reference in the article to demonstrate that the Chicago Loop is notable in the history of planning. It is a good image, but not a universal image. I wouldn't use it as a lead image in any planning article just as I wouldn't use it in Finance or Steel as it is only marginaly related. Transport planning looks like this or this. That is not to say that notable transport planning outcomes are not good illustrations, but they need to be illustrating the article. I couldn't find any good illustration for planning yet, but my view is, as stated before, that is better to have no illustration than one which is only distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I could be spending my time cleaning up articles or uploading useful images, but instead I am caught in some sort of gamesmanship where Transport planning outcomes are considered irrelevant to Transport planning because of an absence of a reference in the article to demonstrate that the Chicago Loop is notable in the history of planning. Chicago is one of the most important cities in the world and its planning outcomes need not be referenced for the image to be notable. A good caption could establish relevance. Optimally, yes referencing the image would be great. It is not so essential in all practicality. Yes plan designs are relevant, but the reader can also learn be seeing the outcomes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On EV grounds, does not provide much EV to any specific article, and to the above tl:dr. — raeky T 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Barr[edit]

Reason: Good quality closeup of Barr, shows his Prada glasses reflecting his social status, and a look of the emotional toll the election has taken on him. A good "warts and all" view of the former congressman and presidential candidate, as if you are meeting him in person.
Articles this image appears in: Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008
Creator: uploaded to Flickr by David All

Support as nominator --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only mention of the 'signature' prada glasses in the article is in the caption - essentially making it original research right now. If we could get some sort of referenced confirmation of this in the prose, it would greatly increase this picture's educational value. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I removed the part about "signature" since it would not go good anywhere in the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E'Twaun Moore[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image
Articles this image appears in: E'Twaun Moore
Dribbling
2008–09 Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball team
2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans
2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season
Creator: flickr user conant.brian

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see how this player is anymore notable then the hundreds of others, likely thousands, in his class over the decades. Hes undrafted college level player. Also VPC is not a consolation prize for a failed FPC. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you present any valid argument against the image? I am getting a bit tired of you saying VPC is not a consolation prize for failed FPCs as if that is a valid argument.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be an EV argument. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To expand, in 2004-2005 there was over 17k NCAA players[5], as an undrafted player, he is really no more notable then those other 17k players, even if he is a good player. That is why I don't feel there is enough EV to justify any accolades on the image, that and it's a very POOR image, and hes still playing so better images could be acquired, and I'm sure plenty better images currently exist. As for the consolation prize, maybe not nominate every FPC that fails as a VPC and you won't see that comment as much. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly not "among Wikipedia's most educational work" --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIT SSV Housing[edit]

Reason: This is a high EV image
Articles this image appears in: State Street Village
Illinois Institute of Technology
List of Illinois Institute of Technology buildings
Creator: Joe Ravi (Jovianeye

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing the EV here? Should we have an article for every building in every city of the world and have a VP for those? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many buildings get more page view than mushrooms. I thought EV was based on its value to the articles. It is as valuable to its articles as any mushroom image is to the mushroom articles that no one reads.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much of the subject is visible. --Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSometimes these images are also better. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floodlights[edit]

**Original** - Floodlights are used to illuminate outdoor playing fields or work zones during nighttime.

Reason: This is a high EV image.
Articles this image appears in: Floodlights (sport)
Lighting
Creator: Joe Ravi (Jovianeye

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure a closeup of lights has much EV for Floodlights (sport) and it probably has almost zero EV for Lighting. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having trouble understanding when a closeup of a subject is not of value to that subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking a wider shot showing either part of a stadium/field or most of it, to illustrate how the lights are used. A closeup doesn't put any context to their use, it's just a light. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are plenty such images in the articles already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the reason you think this picture has more EV over those? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In the article this shows what one type looks like. The image that follows it shows what they do. It is pretty much the same reason a closeup of a bird or a mushroom has EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of the images on Floodlights (sports) this seems to be the best one, and the quality of the photo itself is pretty good. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Monument Chicago[edit]

Reason: This is a high quality and high EV image. This is a commons VP and QP.
Articles this image appears in: Victory Monument (Chicago)
South Side (Chicago)
Douglas, Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
Fountain of the Great Lakes
Creator: Joe Ravi (User:Jovianeye)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The figure on the top is in shadow, is there ever a time of the day/year when the figure on the top is not in shadow? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]