Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Chicago Avenue Pumping Station

Chicago Avenue Pumping Station

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]