Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/broadway tower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broadway Tower, Cotswolds.

[edit]
Broadway Tower is a folly located at one of the highest points (1,024 feet above sea level) of the Cotswolds, England. On a day of clear weather, thirteen counties of England can be seen from the top of the tower.
Edit 1 by Arad - Removed the red dot on the window and also those white distracting spots
Edit 2 by Yummifruitbat - The edit that this image actually needed, cropped the bloke wandering off the edge of the frame
Edit 3 - Also removed one of the tourist and the flags and red light.
File:Broadway tower Edit4.jpg
Edit 4 - people edited off but kept width, and removed dead grass to right.
Reason
I feel that the image is quite striking and is an accurate and detailed depiction of the tower.
Articles this image appears in
Broadway_Tower
Creator
Newton2 (Myself)

Support Excellent colours, sharpness etc. Really good pic --Fir0002 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too tight? Cropping the man only reduced the total width of the image by 3.5%, on the opposite side from the actual subject. That seems a strange basis for an oppose. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so. What does a complete white flag add to the image or a blown out light? I did what I thought would help the image, If it didn't help, then there is always an original to vote for. I wanted the image to be perfect (it's already good) for FP. ;-) --Arad 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably semantics, but it looks to me that you edited the subject not the picture. It is ok to compensate for technical shortcomings, but (and I know, we had that discussion, sorry) manipulating the subject, because it is not to your liking I finds questionable for encyclopedic illustrations... --Dschwen 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, they're not white flags, they're guttering. Secondly, however unpleasant you might find them, they are a material part of the subject, not an incidental element in the surrounding scenery. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't post up anything which isn't materially and verifiably acurate. FWIW, I would personally crop out the figure in the left to up the drama a little more, but Support the original version as is. (changed support to edit 2 below) mikaultalk 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note I do have a version of the image without any people in at all but I think that having the people adds to the image as it gives you a sense of scale. --Newton2 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's just great the way it is! Maybe have a look at cropping out that person doing an 'exit stage left', but as it is it's a great 'chance' shot, I love it mikaultalk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your support! Yes I know what you mean about the person exiting the shot. Still if needs be they can always be cropped out as you say. --Newton2 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way. The humans must stay! :-) I just have a question from Newton2. What do you think about the edit? --Arad 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way really. I agree that the bright white object is quite noticeable but on the other hand I can also accept the point which others have made about only editing to correct technical faults etc. Again, although the white object is fairly obvious I don't think it detracts from the overall photo too much. --Newton2 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the cloning out of the guttering and interior light is unnecessary and reduces the enc. There's another, less obvious gutter spout on the opposite tower so removing the right-hand one falsely implies asymmetry. The interior light indicates (albeit subtly) that the Tower is in use. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it does improve the enc. Because as it seems, people may believe that someone is living in there. But it's only for tourism. --Arad 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. You appear to have equated "in use" with "lived in" in my comment - the presence of an electric light in no way implies inhabitation, but it does show that the building isn't derelict or permanently locked up. How can removing something which was present when the photograph was taken and an integral part of the subject improve the enc? The logic of that statement is seriously flawed. --YFB ¿ 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better that you try be a bit more civil and comment on the photo not the person who comments. And AGF. In any way, those are distracting and I like it without them. You can do whatever you want, but that's how it is. --Arad 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out where I have been uncivil, made a comment about a contributor or failed to assume good faith. I resent being accused of any of those things just because I have disagreed with your edits. --YFB ¿ 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 01 - amazing pic. Well done. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 only - Lovely shot. I've uploaded the edit that it was crying out for, removing the bloke wandering off to the left. I think this improves the composition immeasurably without diminishing the enc provided by the other person as a scale reference. I also took the liberty of moving the edit to the Commons - Newton2, if you're happy to licence your contributions under CC licences as you have here, then your work can benefit all Wikimedia projects if you put it on Commons instead of uploading direct to Wikipedia. --YFB ¿ 18:49, 14 April 007 (UTC)
  • support edit2 / strong oppose versions with gutter 'shopped out. Debivort 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original, although if the consensus goes against me, then I'll support Edit 2. My problem with Edit 2 is that the woman isn't actually a good comparison for scale, as she's standing on the other side of the hill, down the slope a foot or two, so she's taller than she appears in the picture. You can actually see the guy's legs. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor quibble, but I also kinda like the "exit stage right" composition with the guy walking off. My first reaction when seeing this picture was "Oh, that can't be real"; but it is, so it's fantastic! Enuja 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's pretty easy to visually interpolate the height of the woman without needing to see her feet. The difference to the proportion that results from the lower 8 inches or so of her being obscured is negligible when the comparison is this stark. Nonetheless you're perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion. Thanks for noting that you'd support an alternative consensus, that's a helpful attitude to take and makes closure decisions easier. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 only (for reasons stated above) although I'd support the original if it came to it, but oppose all other edits for enc reasons (also stated above) mikaultalk 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2, Super strong oppose Edits 1,3, and 4. See above. --Dschwen 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I want a tower like that. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose all The subject has a sense of scale built in, the windows and doors. The people serve no purpose and deminish the ENC composition. If I wanted to sell this picture I might leave them in for atristic value but they dont belong in the artical. also, there seems to be some tilt that isn't from perspective distortion. Edit out all the people for some support. -Fcb981 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposing because there are people in the shot? Apart from pure aesthetics there is clearly a need for some scale reference; doors and windows come in a huge range of sizes and the building's imposing presence is clearly illustrated by the figure in the frame. I don't think the image as it is needs any more support than it already has. mikaultalk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you know what else come in a wide range of sizes... People. To a much greater extent than doors and windows. The people are not needed as a sense of scale. end of story. Also, if the image has enough support as is, why do you care how I vote? -Fcb981 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote how you like, but I don't think the incentive of your support is enough to edit out all of the people in the shot, that's all. No need to get personal. Thanks entirely to the figure(s) in the frame, I can tell that the windows in this shot vary between one and twelve feet in height. You must know some really weird people ;o) mikaultalk 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this is getting silly... mikaultalk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added yet another edit (sorry) so that people can see what it is like without the people in it. I myself am not sure about the people, having the woman does give some perspective but then without any of them there is less distraction. I also edited off the dead grass on the right, below the tower. Chris_huhtalk 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already mentioned that I do have another capture without the people in. However, the general consensus seems to be that the people are not detriment to the overall composition. --Newton2 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/broadway_tower&oldid=1140169164"