Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Three Country Bridge
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 14:34:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- nice view and high quality picture of the bridge at blue hour
- Articles in which this image appears
- Huningue, Three Countries Bridge, Dietmar Feichtinger
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Wladyslaw
- Support as nominator --– Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support nice and has good EV -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OpposeBut you can change my vote! The problem is it's only used in 1 article, and it doesn't have very high encyclopedic value in it. If there was used in more articles, it would probably get my vote. If you can German you could translate the article for the bridge, which is a reasonable length on .de wp. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just translated the (shorter) French article, but unfortunately I don't know German. I think the main problem at the moment is not the length but the fact that the article doesn't have many references. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aaadddaaammm: is there a critetia for FPC "pictures have to illustrate more than one article"? --– Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nah you're completely right, there isn't such a criteria. But even you have to admit, this image doesn't add much to the article Huningue. Thrilled to see it's included in 2 more articles now, I'll have look in the morning and hope I can change my vote then. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why this image does not add much to the article Huningue?. This is a bridge between the two towns Weil am Rhein and Huningue. So, what´s wrong to show this bridge in this articles of this towns? But this "problem" is already solved. Now it has an own article and I added the picture also in the article of the architect. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Awesome, now that it's in Three Countries Bridge, I Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why this image does not add much to the article Huningue?. This is a bridge between the two towns Weil am Rhein and Huningue. So, what´s wrong to show this bridge in this articles of this towns? But this "problem" is already solved. Now it has an own article and I added the picture also in the article of the architect. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nah you're completely right, there isn't such a criteria. But even you have to admit, this image doesn't add much to the article Huningue. Thrilled to see it's included in 2 more articles now, I'll have look in the morning and hope I can change my vote then. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aaadddaaammm: is there a critetia for FPC "pictures have to illustrate more than one article"? --– Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just translated the (shorter) French article, but unfortunately I don't know German. I think the main problem at the moment is not the length but the fact that the article doesn't have many references. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Left side of bridge cut off... gazhiley.co.uk 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- That just adds to the picture... Lets it seem limitless, methinks. It gets my Support (Pteronura brasiliensis) (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? This isn't a "pretty picture" gallery - it's pictures that carry high EV and are high in quality to the extent that they can be considered a "featured picture"... Saying that by cutting off the left side makes it better is kinda against the point of this process... Might be an idea to read to criteria fella... gazhiley.co.uk 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That just adds to the picture... Lets it seem limitless, methinks. It gets my Support (Pteronura brasiliensis) (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per gazhiley. JJ Harrison (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I got the argument right than a featured picture has always to show whole buildings? An argument I can not comprehend with. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not always - depends on if a shot can be obtained that does include the whole building... Let's just say the building no longer exists, or other buildings around prevent the ability to get the shot perfect, then that can be accepted... But based on other pictures around of this area, then a shot taken a bit further back, or stitched to include more of the picture to the left, means this picture isn't good enough... Can be re-taken by anyone visiting that area to include whole bridge... Hope that makes it easier to comprehend... gazhiley.co.uk 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also, might be worth looking though all FP nom's of buildings that failed - this is a common reason... gazhiley.co.uk 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not really easier to comprehend. The ramp of the bridge on the left side and the right side are nearly the same. This bridge is symmetric to its vertical line. There is no bigger profit on perception if you would see the left ramp of the bridge, but the dymanic of the image would be not so impressive. And if you would look at other bridge-pricture like Diliffs File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg you can also see that there is no reason to show obligatory the whole building. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- True, but the perspective also doesn't really help the viewer "get" the shape of the bridge. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- And so this one do. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- "The ramp of the bridge on the left side and the right side are nearly the same" - how do we know this if it's not in the picture? If we have to guess, or research to find this out, then it's not good enough... gazhiley.co.uk 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are not able to answer my question. And how we could know this in this File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg picture? Further featured pictures that are not showing the whole bridge: File:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg, File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, File:Ggb by night.jpg, even JJ Harrisons Harbour Bridge is not totally showing File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay.jpg all of the ramps. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh, touche! I think this really does require reconsideration of some of the votes already cast on this nom. As an aside, the 2 FPs of Tower bridge should not both be featured, yeah? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, neither seems to be adding anything that the other does not. As an aside, File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg is used only in the gallery. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough - yeah maybe previous noms may need to be looked at... Certainly nowadays when a subject is cut off it normally gets rejected without good reason... All the ones you have mentionned are between 2 and 7 years old now... gazhiley.co.uk 12:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh, touche! I think this really does require reconsideration of some of the votes already cast on this nom. As an aside, the 2 FPs of Tower bridge should not both be featured, yeah? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are not able to answer my question. And how we could know this in this File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg picture? Further featured pictures that are not showing the whole bridge: File:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg, File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, File:Ggb by night.jpg, even JJ Harrisons Harbour Bridge is not totally showing File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay.jpg all of the ramps. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- True, but the perspective also doesn't really help the viewer "get" the shape of the bridge. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not really easier to comprehend. The ramp of the bridge on the left side and the right side are nearly the same. This bridge is symmetric to its vertical line. There is no bigger profit on perception if you would see the left ramp of the bridge, but the dymanic of the image would be not so impressive. And if you would look at other bridge-pricture like Diliffs File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg you can also see that there is no reason to show obligatory the whole building. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also, might be worth looking though all FP nom's of buildings that failed - this is a common reason... gazhiley.co.uk 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not always - depends on if a shot can be obtained that does include the whole building... Let's just say the building no longer exists, or other buildings around prevent the ability to get the shot perfect, then that can be accepted... But based on other pictures around of this area, then a shot taken a bit further back, or stitched to include more of the picture to the left, means this picture isn't good enough... Can be re-taken by anyone visiting that area to include whole bridge... Hope that makes it easier to comprehend... gazhiley.co.uk 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I got the argument right than a featured picture has always to show whole buildings? An argument I can not comprehend with. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find the above debate a little frustrating. There's a difference between a subject that's partially represented and one that's cut off. There are lots of good ways to represent a bridge, but I find this composition a bit awkward. The problem to me is not that the right-hand ramp isn't included, which is not a big deal, but that the curved structure cuts off at an awkward point; if it is symmetrical with the other side, then it's cut off right at the point that the curve increases, which makes it confusing. All that said, I think this is a good picture; I'd say weak support. Chick Bowen 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)