Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Agora and El Puente de l'Assut de l'Or Bridge.jpg
Assut de l'Or Bridge and L'Àgora,[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 13:54:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- EV + HQ
- Articles in which this image appears
- Assut de l'Or Bridge and L'Àgora (recently added)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Saffron Blaze
- Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a fine photo but much too arty for an encyclopaedic image IMO.. It shows neither the bridge or l'Agora well and I don't think it really belongs in either article at all as it adds almost no value. As I said though, as a photo in isolation, it's quite nice. Just not useful IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Ðiliff - as I have commented on the nom above, this is also a lovely pretty picture, but use on an Encyclopedia is questionable due to lack of detail visable. The bridge is incomplete and the angle of the building behind isn't the best to see detail (as well as being obstructed by the bridge). gazhiley 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Ðiliff, gazhiley.
Sca (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't !voted here yet. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support I my opinion, artistic pictures are always of value, also for an encyclopaedia. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion. Artistic pictures are of value if the article is about the art. If the article is about an object, how is it best illustrated by an artistic image that doesn't show the object clearly? What do you learn from seeing this image that you don't learn better from a less artistic but clear and complete representation of it? Uncommonly, an artistic image can be equally encyclopaedically valuable, and when that's the case, great! But more often than not, an artistic image simply cannot illustrate the subject well because it sacrifices a understanding of the subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Beautiful explanation... Should be mandatory that editors have to sign to accept that on the way in here... ;-) gazhiley 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion. Artistic pictures are of value if the article is about the art. If the article is about an object, how is it best illustrated by an artistic image that doesn't show the object clearly? What do you learn from seeing this image that you don't learn better from a less artistic but clear and complete representation of it? Uncommonly, an artistic image can be equally encyclopaedically valuable, and when that's the case, great! But more often than not, an artistic image simply cannot illustrate the subject well because it sacrifices a understanding of the subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice picture but it doesn't show the bridge or l'Agora in full, so I don't see any EV for it. Mattximus (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
