Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sather Tower

Campanile at the University of California, Berkeley

Reason

I was absolutely stunned by the quality of this picture of

WP:FP?

.

Articles this image appears in

Campanile, University of California, Berkeley

Creator

Trisweb (talk · contribs) (Tristan Harward)

Nominator

tariqabjotu

• Nomination and Support Original -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. -Fcb981 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support (prefer original) I told Trisweb to move it Commons and nominate it there because it doesn't show very much of the university, but artistic and technical quality are outstanding. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I thought of that too. However, like others have said, I thought it was encyclopedic enough to warrant giving it a shot here. -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, per trialsanderrors... but only if it gets a good extended caption. Otherwise, full oppose. In addition to weak encyclopedicity, the dark foreground detracts from it for me. --ragesoss 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I was really thinking of this in terms of an illustration of UC Berkeley. As an illustration of the tower, it is sufficiently encyclopedic.--ragesoss 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  San Francisco

  .

  Feel free to edit. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - Agree with the suggestion of Trialsanderrors. But first quality should be improved: grain reduced, sharpness increased and image cropped. Alvesgaspar 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator Comment - I can take prepare it better, it has not been touched-up as of yet. Trisweb 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the article Sather Tower very well. I don't think the image needs cropping. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tower looks good to me. LostCity42 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (original) lovely composition, please don't crop it. An encyclopedic image of an important part of the campus. Lovely shot. Don't ruin it by over-photoshopping. Mak (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the picture is perfectly in balance, I don't see how cropping would improve this. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though the picture is very artistically composed and looks like a painting, I do not think it illustrates very much. I agree with user Trialsanderrors on this. -- Balster neb 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why people oppose "per" me. After all, I support the picture. It could be more encyclopedic by showing more of the campus, but it does perfectly well depict two encyclopedic subjects plus it does an excellent job capturing the atmosphere of an East Bay evening. That's enough for me. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support your idea of moving the picture to the Commons FP candidates page, due to its artistic nature. I don't support the picture as it is for its quality flaws. As for the crop, there is too much black (and other things) in the foreground. - Alvesgaspar 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes areas with little contrast are necessary to balance the picture. In this case the foreground covers the lower 1/3 of the picture, which matches the vertical, where the Campanile splits the left 2/3 from the right 1/3. After all, you rarely see requests to crop the sky. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that this has quality flaws (gradation is bad, needs sharpening) -- it has been poorly processed, and I will reprocess and upload a new version. However, I like the composition and will not be cropping it further. There is detail in the shadows that I may try to bring out. Trisweb 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the picture
  shas 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose I guess it is artistic but really doesn't show much as far as enc goes. --Fir0002 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, gorgeous and I don't get why people are saying it's not encyclopedic, it's not like it's some random tower, like some pictures are random fields or what not. --Golbez 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator Comment - New version of image uploaded; sharpened, noise removed, color corrected. Should I move the article to the correct spelling (Tamalpais) on Commons? I don't know how, but I'll do it if you think I should... Trisweb 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your call, if you want to make the picture available on other wiki projects it's better on Commons. But if you're only checking en.wiki it might be easier to keep track of it here though. And fwiw, I prefer the original muted colors. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty, but I've seen much nicer shots of the campanile. —dgies^t_c 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think both version should be shown here, as it is the usual practise of en:FPC. Personnally I prefer the first. Alvesgaspar 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as i think its a lovely shot and quite encyclopedic. I also like the background Ahadland 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir0002. --Mad Max 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both Tomer T 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]