Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Wiesentalbrücke5.jpg

File:Lörrach - Wiesentalbrücke5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 20:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Wiesentalbrücke5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Wiesentalbrücke5.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw. This image shows the 1211 meters long bridge crossing the vally of the river Wiese at the city of Lörrach. It belongs to the 25 longest highway bridges in Germany. The bridge nuzzles in a attentive way in the environment and is a big landmark of the region. This picture was made from the Rötteln Castle -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice picture, nice landscape, nice engineering... details of location, bridge would be nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • what kind of details do you need? About the bridge there is a small article Wiesentalbrücke at de.wikipedia (but only in German). --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• The ones you put in the nomination, but I suggest you put them in the image description... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Useful and good light. As a photograph, maybe a bit busy overall but perhaps either very difficult or impossible to avoid in this case. --Ximonic (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment The image is nice, but I don't like the crop at the bottom. You cut through a row of houses. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • done, I thought already of a new crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, it's ok now. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ArildV (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Best commons has to offer? I'm missing wow. This is a bridge and some industrial buildings...  B.p. 08:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For some people a bridge never will have a wow because it's a bridge. But is this the best argument against this picture you can offer? --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • LOL.  B.p. 14:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you laughing about your own ridiculousness? --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Comment The "wow" or "not wow" factor is something very personal, and therefore cannot be discussed (De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum). So, an "oppose" vote for this reason is of course acceptable, as usual. Nevertheless, there is no need of contemptuous comments, and nobody (IMO) can say that this pic, showing "a bridge and some industrial buildings", yes, has no value. It has a great educational value in contrary, in many fields of study. Furthermore, the overall technical quality seems quite featurable to me. I think it meets the FP criteria. ...two times this week I support Wladyslaw's pictures in FPC, is it scary for my health ?? BtW, there are two very little dust spots in the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

dustspots found and removed --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• "claps". Counter claps? I doubt. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Bad view (shadow side, bridge covers less than 10% of the pixels). Content: Can't SEE the special thing about the bridge. -- Oliver Rode 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The bridge itself has nothing special (where did I write this?). The bridge is placed in a attentive way in the environment. And to show this you have to show also the surrounding. The shadows makes the view very vividly, I don't see a part that is disturbed by the shadow. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt whether the above vote is after "log in". -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't.  B.p. 09:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

-- some clearification. You have done the best you can do from the place at the time you took it. But one thing is, i think the bridge would look better, if the photo had been taken at a time where the shadow is behind the bridge and not in front of it. The second point is about that the bridge should dominate the picture, not the environment; so i would like to see more croping at the left part, where a second street is. 3rd: The length of the "long" bridge is not very impressive because of the acute angle. -- Oliver Rode 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) Because of the position of the bridge (going west to east) your wish will never be satisfiable. The sun raised long before there is a chance for this shadowing. (2) If a object should be dominant or not is the decision of the photographer. First there is a practical reason for this shot, you will never be able to make a very dominant view at this bridge without having environment. In this version File:Lörrach - Wiesentalbrücke6.jpg you see the bridge dominant, but I think the composition is not better. Second: the bridge is IMO only interesting with its surrounding. If you don't like it, so okay, can't change it. (3) look at (2), to give a idea of the bridges length you are only able to make an aerial shot. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

however, it won. gratulations. -- Oliver (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places