Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Befreiungshalle

Befreiungshalle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 08:56:41 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Befreiungshalle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff the picture is cropped so that it is centered on the building, and possibly adjusted for slight perspective distortion. Or, something like this picture may have more encyclopedic value.Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a crop, but I think the original ha a better composition. Nergaal (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm mistaken, they should both be promoted as a set because this is a building that has to be seen from all sides to be fully understood and appreciated; ideally we'd have four photos, but I'm not going to insist on that (and it may be difficult depending on the terrain). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both as set only. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused here. Why do you need a set when the building looks the same on all sides??? I support the original with it's intriguing composition, or even the other picture in the article. I strongly oppose a set and the cropped version. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you be sure it looks the same on all sides if you've only seen one side? More importantly, the original doesn't show an entrance, so you might think it's a monument that cannot be entered (the small opening at the top could be for maintenance, say). The entrance of course is best seen in File:Befreiungshalle-kelheim-aussen2.jpg. Meanwhile, the original and alt beat that image on resolution (if we allow some artistic license for tilt). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can guess it looks the the same. Having a set of 2 pictures that look, for all intents and purposes, the same is in my opinion a ridiculous suggestion. I also like the picture you linked, I said I would support that "other picture in the article" as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt: The last one. First is too far, the second down under has a bad perspective.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, lovely composition. Oppose alts because of the uninspiring compositions and oppose set as all angles seem to be pretty much the same. This is turning into a fun nomination... J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2 correct focus --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and/or crop - Seem a bit more natural than the other one. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all, sort of using Papa's reasoning. Think our ideal FP of die Befreiungshalle should show the door; from a search for images, it would appear that a shot from the north or the south would best achieve that. As far as I can tell, the topography doesn't allow for easy photography of the eastern door straight on. I disagree with the promotion of either a single photograph or a set of them that give the impression the building is entrance-less. Being a monument on top of a not insignificant hill, it wouldn't be atypical for it to be so. Maedin\^talk 13:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original (weak because EV hindered by omitted doors). Oppose alts and oppose set per JMilburn. --Avenue (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Promoted File:Befreiungshalle Hall of Liberation Kelheim.jpg~~ --Jujutacular ^talk 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

Original: Nergaal, Aaadddaaammm, J Milburn, Anoldtreeok, Avenue (weak), PLW (set)
Alt 1: PLW (set)
Alt 2: Greatorangepumpkin, Extra 999, Anoldtreeok
Oppose all: Maedin

→ Promoted original. Jujutacular ^talk 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As PLW's support applied only to a set, the original only has 4.5 supports? Maedin\^talk 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested more input from PLW. Jujutacular ^talk 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since PLW hasn't edited in some time, I can't really justify leaving this as promotion. My apologies for the mistake. Jujutacular ^talk 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]