Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Berlin Victory Column

Berlin Victory Column

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 03:11:48 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality. EV is strong.
Articles in which this image appears: Berlin Victory Column
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Der Wolf im Wald

Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - White poles are distracting — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks as if it's leaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Although I agree that the pic should be straightened by rotating left a wee bit. Great detail, not always easy to obtain for such a large vertical (220 ft.) object. Could be added to Berlin. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low EV as it doesn't include the base of the column (which has historically significant reliefs - see [1] for instance), and not great technically as the photo is slightly tilted. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reliefs on the base as being essential to the pic., because the Victory Column is thought of primarily as a monument to the Prusso-German victory in the epoch-making Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, while the reliefs purport to show scenes from the German-Danish War of 1864.

In Western historiography, the Danish war generally is seen as a mere prelude to the Franco-Prussian War and the unification of Germany under Prussian hegemony, orchestrated by Bismarck.

(Casualties in the Franco-Prussian War totaled nearly 900,000; in the Danish war 4,000.)

Sca (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliefs are a pretty major feature of the monument, and this composition misrepresents what it looks like. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It would be better if the base was included and the flag poles were not, but the image is technically very good and has EV (high resolution and sharp). Enlarging and comparing symmetrical points vertically shows no tilt in the main column. Bammesk (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC) . . . It does seem to be leaning forward a bit. Is there too much perspective correction!? Bammesk (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The composition is really quite poor, and misses out an important part of the structure. When you compare with full-length images, you will see how lacking this one is. 109.145.177.118 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Preceding comment posted by an IP user who has been on Wikipedia for two days and has made 13 edits. Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that was true, so what? You think that makes the point any less valid? However, FYI, in fact I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than ten years and have made thousands of edits. Please understand that many people's IP addresses change every time they connect. 217.44.215.0 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REGISTERED. Also, though I see you aren't voting, note that "only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count" – in Promoting an Image above. Sca (talk)

As noted above, the reliefs aren't part of the column but only its base, and deal with a minor war rather than with the one primarily symbolized by the column, the Franco-Prussian War. Note also that the nominated photo is the lead photo of 10 illustrating our Berlin Victory Column article, which BTW contains no photos of the reliefs. Sca (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per Bammesk. Spongie555 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]