Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/River in Breganze

River in Breganze

**Original** - Side shot of the River running through Breganze. Note the bullet holes in the wall and the plaque commemorating World War II.

Reason: Shot of Breganze. Note the plaque on the side of the wall and the bullet holes in the side of the building, cause of a World War II battle that took place across the river..
Articles this image appears in: Breganze
Creator: Redmarkviolinist

Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~speedy close (i can't remember the template so someone else can do it pls), appears in no articles.~~ more reasons further down Mfield (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in an article now. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm torn here. On the one hand, I think this is a very attractive image which would certainly catch my eye and make me interested in the article. On the other hand, such an easily reproduced image has to be perfect; the most glaring fault, IMO, is the overcast sky, as aclear sky would certainly be preferable. On another note (and nothing personal against Mfield whatsoever), it really bugs me when someone opposes solely because the image doesn't appear in an article. Yes, the nominator should make sure the image appears in one before nominating, but in most cases it is quite easy to find a suitable article which would benefit from having the image. Again, this isn't aimed at any one editor, and no offense is meant at all, but rather this is a plea to others to, when faced with this situation, look for a suitable article for the image. There's no point in blindly following procedure when a little extra work would benefit the encyclopedia and help out a fellow editor. :) faithless (^speak) 04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, although I don't think it should be up to a reviewer to find a featured place for a featured picture nomination. Furthur reasons for opposing then - the sky is completely blown and I don't find the composition very appealing, the horizon is too centered and it feels like there should be more river than sky and in general more space to the right of the buildings, i.e. a wider FOV Mfield (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this picture is not totally the beauty. Some of it lies with the historical significance. On the left you see a civilian house, riddled with bullets, and a plaque commemorating it. Take this into account along with the beauty of the picture. Thanks, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see the significance of the photo. You mention the bullet holes and the plaque, but the plaque is illegible there is no explanation for the bullet holes, either in the caption or in the article the image appears in. What makes this scene significant? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There was a large World War II battle that took place across the river. I'll add it in the caption. The plaque is written in Italian, anyways. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Nothing special, quality of the picture is not very good. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a snapshot quality photo. crassic!^[talk] 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing wrong with snapshots if they are encyclopedic and well composed. Like Faithless I am torn - it is an attractive picture and supports the article, but would be better on a brighter day. Also the composition is six of one and half a dozen of the other - it needs either a better focal line down the river or a better alignment of the buildings. The bullet holes only show up at full size - perhaps there could be a close-up cut out to make the point. What I do find puzzling is that the nominator goes to great lengths to explain the background on a transitory page, but hasn't added the information to the article itself. Motmit (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I'd be willing to add the info into the article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 16:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]