323:
at far left and 3rd in from right (inc cut off building) are lacking in detail due to light levels... It's a great picture, just not worthy of an FP for me sorry... Oh and while I'm here can I just say the EV is useless for the named buildings in this shot... as a non-chicagoean this picture doesn't give me any clue about the buildings you have placed this into... Each listed building could be any of about a dozen in this shot, so saying this pic is high in EV for each article is not right in my opinion... For example if I wanted to find a picture of for example 300 North LaSalle this picture would not help me in the slightest, and that's kinda against the idea of an encyclopedia for me...
51:
537:. It has no EV in articles on individual buildings because the image doesn't help identify the individual buildings or bridge, even with the best written captions. I can only identify the buildings and bridge because the articles have other images of them, and for that reason, this image is useless in those articles. I think you've misunderstood both hands. I think the "left hand" does appreciate medium and low EV images in articles, because they still offer
739:
the best ways. I like night images, I like this image. I could see it blown up to poster size and hung on a white wall of some yuppie's studio apartment, I just don't think it's good for some of the articles it's in. I haven't said to delete night images from
Knowledge (XXG). I'm really not going to continue this any longer. Clearly we're just going around in circles when there are plenty of other things on the site that need doing. :) Best,
282:) in a way I had not imagined (having taken a boat tour there during the day). Being a time exposure, one can even see some of the brighter stars above the sky, like one might be able to do with the naked, night-adapted eye. I can’t see any stitching seams—even in the water (which is a neat trick). I’m sure very many of our I.P. visitors (who we’re all creating content for) will really stop and stare at this one. I can’t wait to see the
614:). I am not going to find a bunch of images of that team playing. I am going to have to put in a bunch of low EV images. A bunch of images you pictures you guys would say have no relevance. Stuff like pictures of the stadium and players a decade later will be pretty much the only choices I have. Reviewers will be happy to see these images because we have nothing else. Lets look at an article like
922:
Fortunately, for all of
Sasatas fans here in the Mushroom fan club there are not enough DYKs that I am interested in doing for the CUP to win. I could have been a contender if not judged by people trying incessantly to pick fights with me, but don't try to make any sense of the logic they use to shoot down my noms. You will go crazy if you believe that they believe what they are saying.--
1045:
I am not naming names, but a lot of the shenanigans is in suddenly preferring no perspective correction now that I have learned hugin. Every architecture work I have nomed and corrected has either failed or been passed uncorrected. The other stuff is just pretending not to understand why everywhere
496:
I have said time and time again that you picture guys (The left hand) are the only reviewers who prefer not to have medium and low EV images added to the articles. All other review processes (The right hand, i.e, FAC, GAC, FLC, PR, etc.) prefer images of this type to be added. Which articles do you
369:
It's quoted in the introduction as a "high EV image" and listed as in 7 articles... So therefore one would naturally assume it was high EV for all... If it has only got EV for two, then why nom it for 7? Just nom it for the two it has EV for... And my point still remains... if I wanted to see what
738:
What about the readers who aren't familiar with the neighbourhood. There are far more readers of
Knowledge (XXG) who are not, than readers who are. Of course the reader needs to know the location of the building, I just don't think this image achieves that in the best way possible, or even in one of
705:
is another. There are a bunch of others. Clearly, you can not see many of the architectural features, but purging WP of night images is not really that sensible. If we get a good daytime image, we can move this down in the article. Without a good replacement, I see no reason not to have an image
562:
listed at FA. Miley Cyrus sang at the Kid's Ball, and George Lopez did some standup, but you wouldn't slap image of them in there just because we happen to have pictures of them available. FA, FL and GA require the article stays on topic and is relevant, and this applies equally to the pictures used
975:
Tony, this has got nothing to do with the Cup- you can't even claim points for these, as you and everyone involved with the Cup knows. Your random attacks on Sasata (who is one of our best content writers and a capable photographer) just make you look sour. There's no conspiracy, there's no attempt
667:
I know the GAC process perfectly and have experienced it many times. I do not understand how images that don't help the reader, help the article. Removing it from the West Mart Center makes perfect sense because the image does not help a reader identify that building. Only an idiot wouldn't be able
322:
poss strong oppose... I hate glare from lights in night shots... Over-exposure I think it is but not 100% sure... but the blue lights at Left top and left centre, and the orange lights along centre line to far right centre are all very distracting due to their glare... And the top of the buildings
921:
picture points by pretending every image I post has no EV. If I wanted to win the CUP I would not be spending my time here. I could put up about 3000 points in the final round by doing DYKs if I wanted to win. I will mostly just go about my business here on WP and whatever score I get I get.
789:
I agree with Greg that this is visually attractive and would entice readers to any articles it's attatched to in a blurb if it appeared on the main page. For that it gets 2 thumbs up. But I also agree that it is completely useless in the articles listed because there is no way for the person to
990:
First of all, I have a lot of respect for Sasata, who is most likely the most productive wikipedian in the world right now (There was a time when I was and there was a then
Mitchezania was). I actually made sure to recognize Sasata personally when he surpassed me at
693:. If you are going to pretend it would not help the reader know the location of the building, I might as well ignore you. Sure the reader can not look and see if the building is limestone, granite or brick, but the reader can see "Oh it is that building at
976:
from anyone to derail your nominations, and there's no unfair advantage that Sasata has over you. If you have a genuine complaint about the Cup, make it in the correct venue, and I will of course hear you out; please don't drag it up here.
557:
EV. I've written plenty of FAs and FLs and reviewed many more, and I was the FL director for over a year. If you nominated any of the articles you've listed this image in at FAC or FLC, I would question the image's EV. You got
794:, the caption says "Night view of Wolf point (located between 350 West Mart Center and the Chicago River" Well, I don't know what 350 West Mart Center is, so it doesn't help me locate Wolf Point. It doesn't highlight what
634:
would border on idiotic. It is not the best we can hope for, but it is not degrading the article. In many of its other placements, it is sort of decorative, but does not have a negative impact on any of the
102:
478:
That's very innapropriate and inflamatory language Tony and I'd appreciate it if you didn't use such a tone. I'm merely pointing out my objections. Personally I don't care what you have done to
999:
saying crazy stuff to derail any FPC or VPC for which I could earn CUP points. I don't have enough of an interest or belief in the process to pursue it any further than to say it exists.--
802:
article either, because that caption says "Apparel Center sits at a juncture in the
Chicago River." Great. So do a bunch of other buildings in that picture. It's a poor illustration of the
222:
of important subjects have less EV because they do not highlight a specific subject or is that an argument you just create for my noms. (assuming this is considered an important subject).--
482:
I still don't agree that this picture belongs on most of the articles due to lack of EV. I'm allowed to voice my opinions without receiving such attitude in return as far as I'm aware...
995:. I would put my money on him to win the CUP. I don't have the time to be as productive as him. I understand that I could not get credit for this image. My point is that there is a
899:
I would have thought it clear that this image is eye-catching and would make our visiting readership stop and want to click that article. I’m surprised others don’t feel that way.
689:
I am going to assume for a second that you can see by the picture that anyone familiar with the neighborhood would know what building we are talking about by having this image at
378:(the first two in the list that you says it has high EV for) looked like this image is useless as it could be any part of this picture... How do I know from this which building
337:
No one said it was high EV in each article. It is only high EV in the first two. It is like any pano of a variety of encyclopedic subjects. It not high EV for all of them.--
1079:
606:
has an abundance of exactly on point images so we don't need tangential images. That is not what most of the articles we are discussing here are like. Look at my next
1147:
219:
807:
1137:
143:
218:
O.K., I am going to continue to pretend to not see what is going on and ask a foolish question. Has there ever been an argument on FP that night broad
806:, because it's nighttime, so the river is black and just reflects all the lights, and doesn't show any detail of the actual river (take look at our
1031:
I can assure you that I am not in any such gang, so far as I am aware. I don't remember you nominating any which could have gained you Cup points.
17:
428:
But this is my point - it shouldn't be listed in those articles as it has no EV for them... Matthewedwards has re-iterated this below as well...
611:
1142:
584:
Couldn't have put it better myself
Matthewedwards... Oh and btw Tony it was more the "Get off it" rather than the hand bit I objected to...
1056:
1009:
932:
841:
716:
645:
507:
456:
406:
347:
232:
205:
as flickr Kitsch and on EV grounds, marginal EV on any individual article since it's a night shot and not of any specific building. —
1060:
1013:
936:
845:
720:
649:
511:
460:
410:
351:
236:
172:
274:
While it has a little bit of digital noise in the lower left-hand corner of the water (which can be fixed) it is clearly a
1123:
1091:
1073:
1040:
1026:
985:
970:
949:
908:
891:
858:
826:
755:
733:
684:
662:
615:
593:
579:
524:
491:
473:
437:
423:
391:
364:
332:
314:
295:
262:
249:
213:
197:
135:
74:
874:
630:. Obviously, people who know the GAC process understand how less than perfect images help an article. Removing it from
603:
559:
193:
reasons were technical, so nothing has changed for me since a few days ago when to image was last nominated. Sorry. --
396:
7 articles are listed in "Articles in which this image apppears" not "Articles in which this is a high EV image".--
545:. When images provide high EV in one article but little in another, the "left hand" simply doesn't list it under "
698:
963:
819:
748:
677:
572:
65:
are celebrated owners of property interests in the currently undeveloped land in the area. The picture shows
1119:
66:
50:
1052:
1005:
928:
837:
712:
641:
503:
452:
402:
343:
228:
168:
275:
795:
697:." That helps many readers who know what they are looking at. Night images are not uncommon on WP.
690:
631:
379:
375:
115:
78:
70:
1064:
1017:
940:
849:
724:
653:
515:
479:
464:
443:
414:
355:
240:
176:
1036:
981:
957:
813:
791:
742:
694:
671:
566:
553:". The "right hand" appreciates medium and low EV images in articles, too, as long as they provide
530:
371:
279:
111:
58:
1115:
702:
589:
487:
433:
387:
328:
549:". What that sentence really means, and there could be an argument to change the wording, is, "
1047:
1000:
923:
832:
810:). It's nice decoration for the articles it's in, but it's crap at illustrating the subjects.
707:
636:
498:
447:
397:
338:
223:
163:
127:
86:
1082:
with this "gang". For my part I know is absurd, but anybody should judge for him/her-self. --
1068:
1021:
996:
992:
944:
914:
853:
728:
657:
519:
468:
418:
359:
254:
I just feel that the night scene combined with the poorly done HDR makes it not FP worthy. —
244:
180:
1087:
904:
790:
properly identify each building, and the captions at the articles don't help any either. At
291:
131:
123:
90:
82:
918:
623:
607:
283:
954:
I had no idea you were in the Cup, and I don't think I've ever voted on a mushroom photo.
618:
that you think would be better off without the image. The main author of the article who
599:
1032:
977:
309:
62:
1131:
803:
585:
534:
483:
429:
383:
324:
119:
194:
1083:
900:
885:
to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being
668:
to see that. And on that point, I think I'll stop. There's just no helping you.
287:
602:
to know what reviewers want since I may have the most on WP. An article like
256:
207:
304:
152:
1046:
else on WP except the picture world would consider the pictures relevant.--
889:
to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.
1078:
For transparency, I just thought I let everybody know that I also
103:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Chicago River at night
49:
61:
is the historic point that represents the origin of
Chicago. The
871:
105:) when it was realized that its highest EV uses were redlinks.
541:
EV; they just don't nominate them at FPC because they're not
382:
is?! Plus I still don't like the glare from the lights...
627:
619:
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
831:
I can fix the captions and appreciate the feedback.--
706:
that clearly represents the location of a building.--
598:I shouldn't have to say, that I have done enough
101:This is a high EV image that was suspended (see
701:is one that is in a lot of Chicago articles.
144:Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/Places/Urban
286:the day after this appears on the Main Page.
8:
303:- stunning image, but oppose per Raeky. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
868:Featured Pictures are defined as follows:
913:Greg it is not you. It is me. There is
497:feel would be improved by its removal?--
1148:Featured picture nominations/July 2010
612:1997 Michigan Wolverines football team
446:. Get off it. signed the left hand.--
551:Articles in which this image appears
278:It illustrates a multi-bulding area (
7:
628:move the image it into the main text
547:Articles in which this image appears
108:Articles in which this image appears
1138:Ended featured picture nominations
442:Dear right hand, I have fixed the
24:
1:
616:Kinzie Street railroad bridge
136:Kinzie Street railroad bridge
75:Kinzie Street railroad bridge
1143:Featured picture nominations
604:Inauguration of Barack Obama
560:Inauguration of Barack Obama
284:traffic stats on Wolf Point
185:22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
1164:
140:FP category for this image
1124:22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1092:10:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1080:have been put in relation
1074:02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1041:02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1027:19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
986:19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
971:14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
950:04:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
909:00:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
859:23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
827:22:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
756:14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
734:21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
685:20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
663:18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
594:15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
580:15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
525:14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
492:13:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
474:13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
438:10:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
424:13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
392:10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
365:00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
333:23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
315:03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
296:02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
263:16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
250:15:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
214:02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
198:00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
917:of people derailing my
808:FP of the River Thames
94:
67:Left Bank at K Station
39:Voting period ends on
276:truly stunning image.
53:
881:are images that add
796:350 West Mart Center
691:350 West Mart Center
632:350 West Mart Center
380:350 West Mart Center
376:350 West Mart Center
160:Support as nominator
116:350 West Mart Center
79:350 West Mart Center
792:Wolf Point, Chicago
531:Wolf Point, Chicago
529:All of them except
372:Wolf Point, Chicago
112:Wolf Point, Chicago
69:(300 North Canal),
59:Wolf Point, Chicago
28:Wolf Point, Chicago
563:as well as prose.
95:
1072:
1025:
969:
948:
896:
895:
879:Featured pictures
857:
825:
754:
732:
683:
661:
578:
523:
472:
422:
363:
313:
248:
184:
128:300 North LaSalle
87:300 North LaSalle
47:
1155:
1050:
1003:
968:
966:
955:
926:
872:
835:
824:
822:
811:
753:
751:
740:
710:
682:
680:
669:
639:
620:has nominated it
577:
575:
564:
501:
450:
400:
341:
312:
307:
226:
166:
132:333 Wacker Drive
124:Merchandise Mart
91:333 Wacker Drive
83:Merchandise Mart
38:
36:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1128:
1127:
964:
956:
820:
812:
749:
741:
678:
670:
626:has deciced to
573:
565:
308:
71:333 North Canal
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1161:
1159:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1130:
1129:
1112:Not promoted
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
959:Matthewedwards
894:
893:
890:
876:
870:
869:
863:
862:
861:
815:Matthewedwards
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
744:Matthewedwards
703:This recent FA
673:Matthewedwards
568:Matthewedwards
317:
298:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
200:
156:
155:
149:
146:
141:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
106:
99:
63:Kennedy family
45:22:20:41 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1160:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:Makeemlighter
1113:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
974:
973:
972:
967:
961:
960:
953:
952:
951:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
888:
884:
883:significantly
880:
877:
873:
867:
864:
860:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
829:
828:
823:
817:
816:
809:
805:
804:Chicago River
801:
797:
793:
788:
785:
757:
752:
746:
745:
737:
736:
735:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
709:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
681:
675:
674:
666:
665:
664:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
576:
570:
569:
561:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:Chicago River
532:
528:
527:
526:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
500:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
399:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
316:
311:
306:
302:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
264:
261:
260:
259:
253:
252:
251:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
212:
211:
210:
204:
201:
199:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
165:
161:
158:
157:
154:
150:
147:
145:
142:
139:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:Chicago River
117:
113:
110:
107:
104:
100:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
1111:
1110:
1048:TonyTheTiger
1001:TonyTheTiger
958:
924:TonyTheTiger
887:eye-catching
886:
882:
878:
865:
833:TonyTheTiger
814:
799:
786:
743:
708:TonyTheTiger
672:
637:TonyTheTiger
567:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
499:TonyTheTiger
448:TonyTheTiger
398:TonyTheTiger
339:TonyTheTiger
319:
300:
271:
257:
255:
224:TonyTheTiger
208:
206:
202:
190:
164:TonyTheTiger
159:
153:Mike Boehmer
151:Flickr user
89:and part of
54:
44:
40:
32:
27:
635:articles.--
480:WP:CAPTIONs
444:WP:CAPTIONs
41:25 Jul 2010
1132:Categories
1065:WP:CHICAGO
1018:WP:CHICAGO
941:WP:CHICAGO
850:WP:CHICAGO
725:WP:CHICAGO
695:Wolf Point
654:WP:CHICAGO
516:WP:CHICAGO
465:WP:CHICAGO
415:WP:CHICAGO
356:WP:CHICAGO
280:Wolf Point
241:WP:CHICAGO
177:WP:CHICAGO
1033:J Milburn
978:J Milburn
586:Gazhiley
484:Gazhiley
430:Gazhiley
384:Gazhiley
325:Gazhiley
55:Original
1069:WP:FOUR
1022:WP:FOUR
997:WP:GANG
993:WP:FOUR
945:WP:FOUR
915:WP:GANG
866:Comment
854:WP:FOUR
729:WP:FOUR
658:WP:FOUR
543:high EV
520:WP:FOUR
469:WP:FOUR
419:WP:FOUR
374:or the
360:WP:FOUR
272:Support
245:WP:FOUR
195:Dschwen
181:WP:FOUR
148:Creator
1084:Elekhh
919:WP:CUP
901:Greg L
798:is in
787:oppose
624:WP:GAC
608:WP:GAC
600:WP:GAs
320:Oppose
301:Oppose
288:Greg L
203:Oppose
191:oppose
98:Reason
965:Chat
821:Chat
750:Chat
679:Chat
574:Chat
258:raeky
220:Panos
209:raeky
16:<
1120:talk
1088:talk
1037:talk
982:talk
905:talk
800:that
699:this
590:talk
555:some
539:some
533:and
488:talk
434:talk
388:talk
370:the
329:talk
305:Jack
292:talk
1061:BIO
1014:BIO
937:BIO
846:BIO
721:BIO
650:BIO
622:at
512:BIO
461:BIO
411:BIO
352:BIO
237:BIO
189:My
173:BIO
171:/]/
43:at
1134::
1122:)
1114:--
1090:)
1071:)
1039:)
1024:)
984:)
962::
947:)
907:)
892:”
875:“
856:)
818::
747::
731:)
676::
660:)
592:)
571::
522:)
490:)
471:)
436:)
421:)
390:)
362:)
331:)
310:?!
294:)
247:)
183:)
162:--
85:,
81:,
77:,
73:,
57:-
1118:(
1086:(
1067:/
1063:/
1059:/
1057:C
1055:/
1053:T
1051:(
1035:(
1020:/
1016:/
1012:/
1010:C
1008:/
1006:T
1004:(
980:(
943:/
939:/
935:/
933:C
931:/
929:T
927:(
903:(
852:/
848:/
844:/
842:C
840:/
838:T
836:(
727:/
723:/
719:/
717:C
715:/
713:T
711:(
656:/
652:/
648:/
646:C
644:/
642:T
640:(
610:(
588:(
518:/
514:/
510:/
508:C
506:/
504:T
502:(
486:(
467:/
463:/
459:/
457:C
455:/
453:T
451:(
432:(
417:/
413:/
409:/
407:C
405:/
403:T
401:(
386:(
358:/
354:/
350:/
348:C
346:/
344:T
342:(
327:(
290:(
243:/
239:/
235:/
233:C
231:/
229:T
227:(
179:/
175:/
169:T
167:(
93:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
