Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uferensemble RWW Stadthalle Schlossbrücke Mülheim 2014.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Uferensemble RWW Stadthalle Schlossbrücke Mülheim 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 08:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Bank buildings at the river Ruhr river with Castle Bridge ("Schlossbrücke") and Town Event Hall ("Stadthalle"), Mülheim an der Ruhr
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment Good technical quality but not entirely convincing composition. The right part of the photo (the bridge) is not very interesting, have you considered a different crop?--ArildV (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- From an encyclopedic viewpoint the bridge is very important thus cropping out or massively reducing its visual importance is no good idea. From a compositional point I like the crossing of the two bridge structures at the golden-ratio position. I also tried to include some elements from the river bank at the right to give the photo some depth. Have you got a concrete suggestion for a better crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I added a suggestion. I dont think you lose any encyclopaedic value, the bridge is still there and the original image did not show the entire bridge either). IMO more focus on the buildings and a better and stronger composition. I think I'm
Neutral right now, good QI but lacks something making it worthy FP.--ArildV (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I added a suggestion. I dont think you lose any encyclopaedic value, the bridge is still there and the original image did not show the entire bridge either). IMO more focus on the buildings and a better and stronger composition. I think I'm
- From an encyclopedic viewpoint the bridge is very important thus cropping out or massively reducing its visual importance is no good idea. From a compositional point I like the crossing of the two bridge structures at the golden-ratio position. I also tried to include some elements from the river bank at the right to give the photo some depth. Have you got a concrete suggestion for a better crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support It work for me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Question Are there other opinions on the crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The problem I see is not the right crop, that would be acceptable IMO since it is softy hidden by the tree. I can repeat in this candidate my comment from the Mülheim nomination. The quality is top but there is nothing spectacular here. The item drawing the attention is the bridge and it is not really appealing. Sorry to oppose once more, nothing personal, you know that. Poco2 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No problem Diego, but also give non world travelers a chance :) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
- Info ArildV and others: I made an alternative with a tighter crop at the right. Probably some people prefer this one. Let the crowd decide :) If you ask for the reason for nomination (valid for both cases): I think the light is quite good, level of detail is impressive and composition is interesting, especially the intersecting bridges in combination with the river and old buildings. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- weak Support --ArildV (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- weak Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- weak Support I have been coming back to this several times in the last few days and I actually think this is a very good panorama with well-balanced composition and undoubted excellent technical quality. Really, the only issue for me is that the buildings are a bit boring. --DXR (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
