Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oculus (41331p).jpg

File:Oculus (41331p).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 03:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oculus (41331p).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oculus (41331p).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
•  Info Interior of the WTC Transportation Hub (also known as the Oculus). (3 frames stitched). created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose I prefer your other FP, File:Oculus (41323p).jpg, much more. My main objection to this image is the blob at the top (for those of you who aren't from NYC, it's a set of stairs/escalators). It's visually heavy and weakens the feel of a grandiose, open space. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can understand not liking that part. I think it adds an interesting contrast in geometry. And yes, if people are trying to orient themselves, this is standing underneath the same kind of platform visible on the other side of the space (just without an elevator, if I recall correctly). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Neutral per KoH, the underside of the stairs is a bit distracting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Support. Meiræ 19:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose, agree with KoH. The chunk of stairs at the top is distracting. Renata3 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it might still work with the landing cropped out. I don't blame you for trying that, but it doesn't seem to have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Eh. I did what I wanted to do. The cropped version would be more like the one KoH linked, and I wasn't trying to do the same thing here. It's fine if it doesn't work for others. Certainly if someone else wants to crop and nominate, that would be fine, but I don't think I will. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Works for me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. —kallerna (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose First problem, there's already a FP of this place, which looks immediately similar. So, it's difficult not to compare. The other one works well due to the interesting sides, in my view. Although you show here more ceiling, the heavy block in concrete eats 40% of the composition, and is not really an attractive feature in my opinion. We wonder why it's here and how the subject is behind. However, after both images, I think another FP is possible, if it includes more ceiling (but not this part with ventilations). Another view with a larger angle, to show simultaneously more of the architecture of the top, and more at the sides. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)