Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Finlandia Hall

Finlandia Hall

Reason

Concert hall "Finlandia" in Helsinki, designed by the "father of modernism" Alvar Aalto in 1971. The walls are carrara marble. In my opinion very nice angle of this piece of modern architecture, looks very good to me.

Articles this image appears in

Finlandia Hall

Creator

Thermos

Nominator

Pudeo (Talk)

• Support — Pudeo (Talk) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great composition - shows of Alto's rhythmic facade nicely - particularly like the reflections from the (nearly unseen) glazing. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a little difficult for me to look at and understand because of the lack of context. Although I understand the picture may have meaning architecturally, I still think that this picture might be considered to be "cutoff" in the FP criteria since it only shows part of a wall. The flag in the bottom is also unfortunate. Basar 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Captures the spirit of the architecture. This building is huge, and can be shown "uncut" only in a picture shot from the bay side - unfortunately, those pics tend to be rather dull - there's not even a full image on the official site, as far as I saw... --Janke | Talk 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no context.. the only idea of scale I get is from the size of the lights underneath the overhang. It's also not a plan, elevation or section so its not exactly useful for architectural study. Regardless, the image could be sharper. -- drumguy8800 C T 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great composition - Alvesgaspar 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The composition is pretty good, but I agree with drumguy8800 that the pic is basically too artsy to be encyclopedically useful. --Dschwen 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry chaps, I never interrupt on FIC but there's two people now who are objecting for this pictures lack of encyclopedic quality because its too arty - presumably a elevation would be considered encyclopedic? Well architecture is a fine art - what you suggest is like illustrating a painting by number break down of the mona lisa - an assmebly drawing does not show how the light hits a building's forms and masses or how the rhythym of a facade diminishes with perspective - these are things the architect has in mind. The lack of scale is a criticism often laid at the door of modern architecture - so it's inclusion in this image, makes that point and is therefore encylopedic on that basis alone. Some thoughts anyway. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that's a product of the picture and not the building itself? I'm trying to find other pictures of the building to see if there is a way it would be more clear and more encyclopedic... gren グレン 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • trialsanderrors answered that better than I could --Dschwen 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This picture sits uncomfortably between the poles of representing the building and representing the architectural style, and for both poles there are better pictures. This one captures the full facade and puts the building in context, while this one does much better at capturing the international style of the building. Now we just have to collect the money to send Diliff to Helsinki... ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per trialsand errors. The two linked images in his/her comments are much more informative than the nomination. Debivort 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -Nelro
• Oppose not an impressive picture Tomer T 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]