Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Central Park Manhattan Island New York

Central Park Manhattan Island New York

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 14:32:39 (UTC)

Reason: Cristal clear shot of the most famous park in the world, Central Park Manhattan Island New York: Central Park is a challenge to shoot for any photographer. This shot, I felt was indicative of the contrast between nature and societies intrusion upon it.
Articles in which this image appears: Central Park; History of landscape architecture; Frederick Law Olmsted; Landscape architecture.
FP category for this image: Portal:Geography/Featured picture
Creator: talk→ WPPilot 14:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator – talk→ WPPilot 14:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support any – Hope nobody is going to hit me in the head, but yes, I support. Central Park is the beginning of the modern urban planning landscape architecture, modern city planning and a very-very iconic setting. Also like the idea of a winter picture - it shows the structure better - the leafs would cover it otherwise. Leave any complaints here ->. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ahhh, Thanks..talk→ WPPilot 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark with a crowded yet uninteresting composition that doesn't really give viewers a feel for the park. I think that this is actually inferior to the (far from great) lead photo the nominator used this image to replace [1]. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really agree. The previous was a pond and some trees, with a few buildings in the background. This one shows the plan of the setting much better. The biggest problem with the park is that one have pictures that don't show the park's disposition, aesthetic and functional design and location - just bits and parts of it - or one have the plans and working drawings of the architect, - that don't shows the park, - this one is just a perfect balance. As a landscape architect I am very pleased with this picture, find it very useful. This one shows many of the park's elements and their combinations: - the buildings, roads, the untouched natural rocks, the trees, the playgrounds ... and the combination of it including the contrast of private and public open spaces. Hafspajen (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All the buildings are tilted towards the centre (especially at the sides of the picture), and overall picture is too dark... Given the ease of taking this again, I know we can do better... gazhiley 13:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thought so... Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so what? gazhiley 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

->

.. Hafspajen (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? gazhiley 10:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The curves that you see are the result of the lens. If you look at the building the photo was centered upon it is square to the photo. As far as ease of getting this shot again, it was not easy at all, frankly speaking. Central park is busy. I had to wait for a half hour to get a clear shot that had no people or moving objects in it. Once the sun comes out the buildings in the background are washed out and the balance IMHO becomes much less in contrast as the sky is just to bright. talk→ WPPilot 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For me, the lighting is pretty dreary and uninteresting. Sorry. 109.153.232.33 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and for me as a landscape architect it has a giant EV. Absolutely HUGE EV. Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Dark, tilt, flat color, and (IMO) lacks the EV necessary to represent Central Park. The link for article usage also suggests that it is used in "New York City" which may be in error.--Godot13 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I say it does not lacks the EV necessary to represent Central Park. In each and every book about the History of landscape architecture there is a picture of this park. Honestly - with he hand on the Bible - never found any picture in any of these books as informative like this one. Do whatever you want with this information (that would be EV)- or go and start borrowing Landscape architecture books, and you will soon notice it. Hafspajen (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note That is quite flattering, regardless of what the others vote here. I have learned that this board tends to "Sway" so to speak but your comment, from the perspective of a professional is duly noted. Thank you kindly for your comment and your support.talk→ WPPilot 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish I could find a landscape architect on this Wiki to pull him here and ask. But unfortunately we don't have landscape architect user-boxes only architect ones. Never mind, if it will not be good enough for the FP, try to withdraw permission, put a copyright on it and sell it for any books putting together a Landscape architecture history book. They will most probably be extremely happy to use it. Hafspajen (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice of you to suggest;) but I would rather it be made public and the others here be proven wrong. I am not one to withdraw a submission for criticism in exchange for money. You go right ahead and send it to them, on my behalf and any proceeds can be donated to Wiki foundation, every last dime. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot 03:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: It makes a great desk top background :) talk→ WPPilot 03:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, just a suggestion. We love to use it too. Added already to History of landscape architecture - just great there - illustrates perfectly what it is about - Landscape architecture and Frederick Law Olmsted. Surely can find a couple more. Hafspajen (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tusen Takk" talk→ WPPilot 14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both Quality is very subpar for a FP. The original is underexposed; the alternate is overexposed. Certainly not ideal composition. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both I think the quality is fine. However, I don't think this one picture should be used to represent a place as varied as Central Park. Perhaps it could be resubmitted as part of a set of pictures of central park? Komvuelta (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Speedy Close- For the reasons above and for the low EV, I would suggest terminating this nomination - DUCK404 a (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm takiing this as a withdrawal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]