Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Volkswagen Plant, Wolfsburg

Volkswagen Plant, Wolfsburg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2013 at 13:51:33 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent picture, with high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Wolfsburg
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 13:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems good to me.— BNK(talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Colour balance seems way off, far too warm. But should be easily fixed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there and the image does not strike me as unnaturally warm, although in cloudy weather the building appears much darker. --ELEKHH^T 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the building looks off-colour (it's already warm coloured so it's much harder to judge), it's the rest of the scene that is warm tinted. Look at any of the whites in the scene, they're all skewed towards the red. I'm loathe to upload over the top of it as it's already featured elsewhere, but I think a colour correction would help. I don't know whether uploading an edit is the answer either though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whites appear white on my screen but you're more than welcome to upload and nominate a corrected version under an Alt name. --ELEKHH^T 13:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I used the white of the VW logo on the side of the building as the guide for the WB correction as some of the other whites may have been a bit creamy or off-white to begin with. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I can see the difference now. --ELEKHH^T 23:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is scaffolding visible on the façade between the towers from a possible ongoing restoration work. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scaffolding is normal, hardly distracting on a factory. In this case it obscures 0.1% or so of the image. I don't see how that's an argument enough to oppose....--ELEKHH^T 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ This image and the article don't really mesh. The article is about Wolfsburg. The article makes it note that the VW factory is the most notable part of the city. But the VW factory isn't the city. At the same time, the image shows only the factory's power station, not the factory. It's also a wide photograph of a square subject, therefore I have to also mention that I think the crop on the right is poor. The image should be on an article about the VW plant... or it should show the city. Not just a part of the factory which is a part of the city. Does this make sense? I also find it a touch contrasty, but that's a personal thing (I find a lot of FPs to be too contrasty). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Images of local landmarks, particularly those discussed in depth in a city/village article, still have EV. Compare the Church of St John the Baptise at Harescombe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I was going to argue that Harescombe has a section devoted to the church, whereas Wolfsburg merely mentions the VW factory almost in passing a couple of times, but then I looked at the article more closely and it's obvious "Volkswagen" plays a major role in the city—something I should've checked first instead of skimming the topmost part of the article. So I'll change my vote to Support Edit 1. Thanks for bringing to my attention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]