Talk:Fidelity Building (Baltimore)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fidelity Building (Baltimore) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Maryland: Baltimore Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Baltimore may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Main pic

It's to me very obvious that File:Fidelity Building - Baltimore - 6.jpg is a way better picture than File:Close-up view of the Fidelity Building, Baltimore.jpg. User:Ymblanter's picture isn't representative of the building at all. It's of the side of the building that doesn't face the street and where they didn't decorade the façade. --1Veertje (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that photos of bad quality should not appear in the articles. I am sorry to say but the photo is distorted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be there in a month, I can see if I can take a photo from the side of the decorated facade.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your photo doesn't show anything about the building of relevance. it doesn't show how tall it is. it doesn't show what the façade look like, it doesn't even show the decoration along the windows since these are the windows at the back of the building. Feel free to produce something better when you're there, but in the main time I'm reverting it back. --1Veertje (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the next revert will get you instantly blocked per WP:3RR. Open an RfC if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on which picture to use):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Fidelity Building (Baltimore) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@Ymblanter and 1Veertje: I believe 1Veertje's picture to be the superior picture. I wanted to look at this with criteria from featured pictures and compare the two pictures with that. I've placed my full evaluation below, so be sure to click "show" in the table. – Nihlus (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full analysis – Nihlus (talk)
File:Fidelity Building - Baltimore - 6.jpg	File:Close-up view of the Fidelity Building, Baltimore.jpg

Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Is of high resolution. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.	Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Is of high resolution. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
The mail delivery truck obstructing the view of the base of the structure; however, the rest of the picture is great, including the colors and composition of the building itself. Image is slightly tilted	A picture of the building, especially one in the lead, should preferably show the entire building. Huge glare from lighting from inside the building from where the picture is taken Little to no EV as one could argue there is nothing really special about the windows of the structure. Most people would not be able to tell this is the Fidelity Building from this shot. Possible EV if placed lower down in the article, but even that is tenuous.

Ok, thanks. I am undoing my edit and unwatching the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]