Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kylesku Bridge
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 03:41:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- Meets the technical standards and resolution standard and is a well composed pic of a notable bridge on a sunny day in scotland
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kylesku Bridge
- FP category for this image
- Architecture
- Creator
- Geni
- Support as nominator – ©Geni (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It's a fine photo, but I haven't decided how I feel about the harsh sunlight and relatively straightforward composition. In the meantime... there's a dust spot in the sky about one-third of the way inward from the left. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose- This is a nice picture, but I feel like the foreground is too blurry, especially above the bridge itself. Maybe blurry is the wrong word, but it just doesn't seem feature worthy to me. Goveganplease (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is no foreground above the bridge.©Geni (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Struck !vote as user isn't eligible (5-days old account with 20 edits instead of the required 25 days and 100 edits). Armbrust The Homunculus 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – Well, there's a gradual curve or arch to the bridge deck, but I don't know how unusual that might be. For a modern box girder bridge it seems reasonably nice-looking, but the overall composition is rather plain and static. I'm skeptical about EV and visual interest for Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support. This is a good photo because it is clear and demonstrates the uniqueness of the architecture. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. While it's well above size requirements, the sharpness of the image doesn't seem to be exceptional; and I don't think it depicts one of the most notable things about this bridge - its horizontal curve, which is shown much better from above, as in File:Kylesku_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_53877.jpg, or either of the photos on this external page. It's a perfectly fine photo, but our standards for landscapes are justifiably very high, as they are the most reproducible type of photo. TSP (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Goveganplease.-Jobas (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per TSP. There's nothing at all wrong with this photo, which is well executed and useful, but I agree that the geograph.org photo indicates that it wasn't taken from a position which best shows its features - which are mentioned in the article which notes that it was designed to blend in with the landscape. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)