Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pritzker Pavilion at pano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 14:25:13 (UTC)

Reason: This is a high EV depiction of a notable venue that provides front to back depiction in a single image
Articles in which this image appears: Jay Pritzker Pavilion
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: User:g_patkar

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this happening if only for the awkward cropping. --Dschwen 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Tony will you not take notes from previous Nom's? every nom of this building so far has given a reason to oppose as the whole stage is never shown... And surprisingly enough this one is the same... Nom's with the subject cut off pretty much fail every time... I'm sure there are exceptions somewhere hence the lack of the word "never" but this is not one of those exceptions... Even the seating area isn't fully shown, it's cut off at the bottom... There's huge distracting shadows across the seats too making your eye naturally look up to see why but oh what do you know it's cropped too low to see why... The lighting is poor too as the stage looks like a cave as it is in pretty much darkness... There's an ugly bit of railing in the bottom left of the picture... Need I go on? You gotta look a bit harder Tony than this sorry... gazhiley.co.uk 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry man, but it needed to be said. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Gazhiley, but this is the best photo of this theater I've seen yet. --I'ḏ ♥One 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tbh, I might have supported this if about 30 degrees were taken away from the left and added to the right. Bonus points can be obtained for capturing the full height of the stage and stage roof. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The seating is cut off at the bottom, and there's nothing of interest in the background. Bad angle in my opinion. Haljackey (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find panoramic pictures generally problematic. They're interesting to look at but also confusing: by their nature they tend to be busy and have several points of reference that distract the eye. Where's the foreground? Where's the background? This is a very well done panorama, but the composition is still too chockablock to make it a good FP. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The foreground's to your left, background's center right. =) --I'ḏ ♥One 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor lighting. Spikebrennan (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]