Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saint Isaac's Cathedral
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 22:25:28 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Saint Isaac's Cathedral
- Reason
- High quality and high EV — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArionEstar (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Florstein
- Support as nominator --ArionEstar (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Crop's too tight, not enough foreground. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose — Too front-and-center, straight-on for my taste. Sca (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - I am supporting this on the grounds the "Encyclopedic Value"
- Here is a truly "encyclopedic" image of a building. It is not an "artistic" image, and it isn't pretending to be. It is an absolutely dead-centre, close crop of the sort which has real value in any architectural article where the writer wants to compare styles and forms of buildings. This is a "photographic elevation" of the building. A really useful image for displaying its architecture. I'll almost certainly find a use for it. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Amandajm, I understand your logic, but it seems based on the dubious assumption that "encyclopedic" photos should be straight-on compositions akin to line drawings or blueprints in structure. Are encyclopedias written for architects? No. What's wrong with an artful angle that pulls the reader into the text? Nothing, IMO — as long as it's not distorting the subject. Sca (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Response Sca, I frequently read comments on the Featured picture candidates page that assess images on some quality of "educational value" or "encyclopedic value" that I find extremely "dubious". What I am telling you here is that from a purely encyclopedic (not artistic) point of view, this is an extremely useful photograph for articles about architecture. It is the ideal image for making a comaparison between the styles (and the facades) of 19th century Revival churches, for example. It is exactly the type of image which I (as the major Wikipedia author of large articles on historic architectural style) use all the time, specifically for comparison, and in order to describe structural elements, proportion, decoration and style. While you may be thinking about it as an image at the top of the page for that particular cathedral, I am thinking of it juxtaposed alongside an equally straight-on image in a section about Renaissance Revival architecture in the main article on Renaissance architecture. I am planning on cropping it further and using it in Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. I am wondering how I am going to include it in the article called Renaissance Revival architecture, which is currently a mess of badly-sized images. When I tell you it's useful, then I am telling you, in this case, as the major potential user. It will go in at last one of these three articles, simply because its straight-on, close-cropped view makes it ideal in that Wikipedia context. Amandajm (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Amandajm, I understand your logic, but it seems based on the dubious assumption that "encyclopedic" photos should be straight-on compositions akin to line drawings or blueprints in structure. Are encyclopedias written for architects? No. What's wrong with an artful angle that pulls the reader into the text? Nothing, IMO — as long as it's not distorting the subject. Sca (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- To each his own. Seems we have different perspectives on the function of the Main page. Sca (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)