Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rocky Point State Park
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 15:02:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- Rocky Point State Park in Rhode Island was built on the site of an abandoned historic amusement park. Only a couple artifacts from the latter. The most obvious/largest/best known is this giant arch, originally from the 1964 World's Fair in NY. It's a passive use park, largely open space and paths, so this does, in my opinion, depict the park pretty well. It's the VI for the park and a QI on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rocky Point State Park, Rocky Point Amusement Park, List of Rhode Island state parks
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
- Creator
- Rhododendrites
- Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – EV? Sca (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Sca: I don't know what to do with this comment. Are you asking what the encyclopedic value is? If so, it's built into the reason description and I don't know what else to say. It's a depiction of a notable park including a [locally, anyway] iconic artifact from a [not just locally] historic amusement park (and the World's Fair)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I kind of agree with Sca. This is a good depiction of the arch, but the arch is not that significant or notable. Is this a good depiction of the park? It shows an asphalt path and a shallow hill, it doesn't show very much, other than the arch. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but as I said in the reason, it's a small, newly opened passive use park that's basically open space, a couple paths, and a few remnants of the old amusement park (of which this is the most prominent). There's history, and it's good the land was preserved for public use, but the place is, at this point, fairly unimpressive. I nominated it because I do think it's a pretty good representation of the park. I mean, as with just about any subject I can imagine something better (e.g. if I had access to a drone to take an aerial shot), so I guess I just don't know what's expected... :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is a good photo, but when it comes to EV opinions differ. Here is how I think of the EV in general terms: when I see a photo and it is interesting enough that I want to know more, then is there content on the English Wikipedia to satisfy my curiosity. In this particular case, I see the photo as a depiction of the arch, rather than the park, and the arch is not that notable, and in my opinion not that interesting (based on our content) to have a FP of its own. (but sometime, some photos, make all this logic go out the window!!) Bammesk (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Happy for this to be a learning experience if I'm off target. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is a good photo, but when it comes to EV opinions differ. Here is how I think of the EV in general terms: when I see a photo and it is interesting enough that I want to know more, then is there content on the English Wikipedia to satisfy my curiosity. In this particular case, I see the photo as a depiction of the arch, rather than the park, and the arch is not that notable, and in my opinion not that interesting (based on our content) to have a FP of its own. (but sometime, some photos, make all this logic go out the window!!) Bammesk (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but as I said in the reason, it's a small, newly opened passive use park that's basically open space, a couple paths, and a few remnants of the old amusement park (of which this is the most prominent). There's history, and it's good the land was preserved for public use, but the place is, at this point, fairly unimpressive. I nominated it because I do think it's a pretty good representation of the park. I mean, as with just about any subject I can imagine something better (e.g. if I had access to a drone to take an aerial shot), so I guess I just don't know what's expected... :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This pic don't identify the subject properly. As per WP:FP?
Is among Wikipedia's best work.
It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC) - Oppose – Photo shows an empty place, the character of which is not readily discernible. This photo, also in article, contains more visual info and is more accessible to the viewer. The nominated photo, IMO, fails criteria 3 and 5. Sca (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – weak EV, the arch dominates the image and it isn't notable. Bammesk (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support – It seems a good illustration for the place. Yann (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a nice photo, but its EV is limited as it's not clear what the photo depicts. The photo of the "Remains of the Skyliner ride's upper turnaround" in the Rocky Point State Park has much stronger EV as it depicts what's clearly abandoned entertainment infrastructure, though the present image isn't quite as good technically. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)