Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mole Antonelliana
Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article it appears in, and who created the image.
- Self-nom. I like this one. The perspective is unusual and it shows that the Mole can be colorful in the morning light. Ericd 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- A bit Average. It would have been nice to see the dome, it seems to be the most prominent feature of the Mole Antonelliana.
- Not exactly, the dome and the tower above is what you see from the heights around Turin. In the city you will mainly see the tower. Near the Mole you can't see the building has a whole, you can barely see the dome, you look ahead and notice it's very high. Ericd 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Uncomfortable angle, lamp post in the way -- does absolutely nothing for me I'm afraid chowells 06:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Chowells. Enochlau 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- ( − ) Oppose Uninteresting to start with and the angle doesn't work IMO --Fir0002 09:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- oppose - daring angle doesn't work for me. I feel ideally an encyclopedic image shouldn't require me to twist my neck to take in any meaningful info unless it's additional to that absorbed in the normal view. --bodnotbod 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- That building requires you to twist your neck. I've been there three times and I still don't know what is the "normal view".... Ericd 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- OK "normal view" wasn't a particularly helpful phrase, I grant you. I mean a face on view from a greater distance, taking in a facade of the building. Plus a greater distance would give you an insight into how it is possible to view a building without bowing to its seeming demand that you stress the upper part of your spine. --bodnotbod 20:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- That view doesn't exist this is a very high building surrounded by narrow streets. From a distant point of view you can see the top of the building with a "normal" perpective, but you can't see the whole building with a "normal" perspective. That's one of the reasons why I posted this view, this is a very strange architecture IMO. Ericd 09:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK "normal view" wasn't a particularly helpful phrase, I grant you. I mean a face on view from a greater distance, taking in a facade of the building. Plus a greater distance would give you an insight into how it is possible to view a building without bowing to its seeming demand that you stress the upper part of your spine. --bodnotbod 20:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- That building requires you to twist your neck. I've been there three times and I still don't know what is the "normal view".... Ericd 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- sorry, but I
ligelike it supportRichardkselby 00:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) - Oppose - Nothing wrong with an image being "artsy" but it should never be at the expense of the presentation of the subject to be shown and here, I think it is. --Deglr6328 22:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Deglr6328. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose You can't really tell what the picture is meant to depict without a caption. I realize that it would be hard to get a wider shot of the building, but I think that's necessary. --Kerowyn 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)