Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 19:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - This is a very sharp, clear photograph. But I don't know if the composition is best – I don't see the purpose of all the empty space on the left/upper-left. I suspect that a more dramatic photograph of this is possible under different lighting conditions. --Kbh3rdtalk 02:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The subject has a sparse, minimalist design. I see how perhaps the composition with all that empty space mimics that. The color of the sky works well with the luster of the metal, also. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There is already a FP of this tower: File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower16.jpg, which is much better than this one. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- (1) This is a detail shot and has also a different purpose! (2) There is no limitation about objects that have to be FP . --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Neither motive nor composition appeals to me. What is special here? What are your reasons for nomination? Probably I oversee something. Multiple FPs of one object are imho no problem in general. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- We see the observation platform and the clock. A legitimately detail shot of this observation tower. ~The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is FP, not FT, meaning we feature pictures for their excellence, not towers. While the tower may be very interesting, this picture isn’t. It shows high quality but nothing special to me – no wow. Oppose --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some like special objects in pictures, some not. So what, Kreuzschnabel? No need for snotty commentary. I just anwserd a question of a other user. So stay calm. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm, don’t worry (it takes much more to upset me). My "snotty commentary", as you called it (not entirely unsnottily, if I may say so), was a reaction on your statement "The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower". I agree – it certainly is. But that does not automatically make any picture of it as uncommon and interesting, too. We feature uncommon and interesting pictures here, and not necessarily pictures of uncommon and interesting things. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- For sure an interessting object makes not always an interessting picture. It would be much more helpfull if you could argue why. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It’s not always easy to say why a picture does not rise fascination. There’s nothing really wrong with this picture, it’s just not looking that special. Composition is one issue as already touched by others: too much sky, too little tower. Anyway, I am not obliged to justify my vote. I just answered to your reason for nominating being the uncommonness of the object, instead of the picture. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- For sure an interessting object makes not always an interessting picture. It would be much more helpfull if you could argue why. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm, don’t worry (it takes much more to upset me). My "snotty commentary", as you called it (not entirely unsnottily, if I may say so), was a reaction on your statement "The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower". I agree – it certainly is. But that does not automatically make any picture of it as uncommon and interesting, too. We feature uncommon and interesting pictures here, and not necessarily pictures of uncommon and interesting things. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some like special objects in pictures, some not. So what, Kreuzschnabel? No need for snotty commentary. I just anwserd a question of a other user. So stay calm. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is FP, not FT, meaning we feature pictures for their excellence, not towers. While the tower may be very interesting, this picture isn’t. It shows high quality but nothing special to me – no wow.
- We see the observation platform and the clock. A legitimately detail shot of this observation tower. ~The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I don't find the composition particularly striking either, and that sky is just not right. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
