Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charles River

Charles River

Reason: Very attractive and encyclopedic view of the Boston skyline, with the traffic pattern in the foreground serving as attention-getter. Or, alternatively, the picture without the bridge.
Proposed caption: Boston's Back Bay and the Charles River at dusk, seen from Cambridge, Massachusetts, with the on-ramp of the Longfellow Bridge in the foreground. Important high-rises include Hancock Place, Prudential Tower, and 111 Huntington Avenue.
Articles this image appears in: Charles River et al.
Creator: Eric Hill (Pear Biter on Flickr)

Support as nominator trialsanderrors 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I see many small quality problems (blown lights in buildings, slight blurriness, especially around trees) but I don't find anything deal-breaking. I have a slight preference for the original because of composition.--Here T oHelp 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Original Well, the alternative is too blurry IMO, but I really like the original — as long as the slight tilt (at least, I think it’s tilted) is corrected. Yeah, there are some blown areas (like that streetlight), but overall, it works as an FP, I think. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I de-tilted the picture based on the verticals of the buildings in the background. The light poles are at an angle compared to the buildings, which makes me believe they might not be perfectly vertical. ~ trialsanderrors 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ support alternative, oppose original. I oppose the original because the highway is distracting to the encyclopedic-ness and because of the distracting halo on the left side of the image from a cut-off source. ~~My support on the alternative is conditioned upon it being a crop or an original photograph rather than the original with the highway photoshopped out.~~ _{(this concern addressed per Trialsanderrors)} Spikebrennan 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC). Additional comment on original: I don't like how the streetlights are in the same part of the picture as the skyline-- above or below would be not so bad, but in this image they seem to meld together.[reply]
- Per Flickr data, the two pictures were taken 8 minutes apart, so they're separate original images. ~ trialsanderrors 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support first, oppose second - a bit of motion blur in both, but more so in the second. As opposed to Spike, I think the highway (Memorial Drive) adds to the encyclopedic value, by showing the breadth of the river, which might otherwise look like a lake. Debivort 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first, mild oppose alternate all the lights are blown, particularly the streetlights in the original. Would make for a gorgeous postcard, but the lack of clarity in full size really brings these down. Nice shots, but not quite as good as some of our other skylines and cityscapes. Matt Deres 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both they both have motion blur as others have stated, futhermore the street lights on the original are very distracting as they are very bright --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, weak oppose alternative Very nice night shot. The highway goes a long way in giving a sense of scale, as mentioned by Debivort. I agree that the streetlights in the foreground are a bit distracting but nothing major. I would actually like the pic more if it was darkened a bit...in it's current state, it's too bright for a night shot. Very encyclopedic and impressive. Jumping cheese 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken at 8:40pm in May, so it's not really a night shot, but just after sunset. ~ trialsanderrors 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Although they are not the subject, the "twinkling" of the street lights in the first picture and the motion blur in the second picture is just too much for me. Beautiful night though! tiZom_(2¢) 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Per Above. ^8thstar 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Schcambo 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. MER-C 09:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]