Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue Lagoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blue Lagoon geothermal spa

Reason

It's a well done photo of the lagoon and surrounding terrain.

Articles this image appears in

Iceland, Blue Lagoon (geothermal spa)

Creator

Lipton_sale

• Support as nominator Lipton sale (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• weak oppose This is a beautiful shot; it's a shame that 70% of it is empty blue sky. None of the other pictures on the article page look nearly so pretty, but they have more encyclopedic value because they actually show the topic in question. Try Commons. Matt Deres (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose edit1 The original at least had some aesthetic appeal; the edit is a shot of blown sky and the silhouette of a bridge. Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Matt. Sky should be cropped. Otherwise, try on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit Good quality photo. Nice representation of a lagoon. crassic!^[talk] 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support either crassic!^[talk] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• support original, weak support alt - this image is 2000 pixels in the X-axis. Having 70% sky does not detract from the totally adequate number of pixels dedicated to the lagoon. That sky helps give the thumb a nice composition, and does not take away from the detail in the full size. de Bivort 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support original - Agree with Debivort -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think Matt's comment was about composition rather than size criteria. And at that, I have to agree: the blue sky doesn't add to the picture. Neither original nor crop is particularly encyclopaedic. For an encyclopaedic picture about the spa, I think we'd have to see more of the facilities (cf. this image). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support original per de Bivort (despite blown sky at right ;) I'd say that it's the lagoon itself and the surroundings that's important - spa facilities are the same the world over... --Janke | Talk 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• And, er, what colour is the sky the world over? ;) It just strikes me that, pretty sky aside, this photo was taken with the wrong orientation. Matt Deres (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - a beautiful image but too me the composition seems a bit off with the cut to the left and I think that a (perhaps less pretty) shot with less of an artistic bent might add more to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support original, weak support alt per Debivort. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey and Guest9999.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Neutral. It's a very beautiful image, but I believe that taking the photograph at sunset detracts from the Encyclopedic Value. NauticaShades 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I took this at one in the afternoon. It's impossible to have the sun any higher in the winter in Iceland. Lipton sale (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, why would the evening be less Enc? You can see all the details, and the photo catches the mood of the place perfectly, to which I can personally attest. de Bivort 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. NauticaShades 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose You have significally reduced the value of the Blue Lagoon article by replacing two enc pics and sending them to a gallery. Its a beautiful picture but too esoteric?? - would make an excellent book cover. It needs all the blue sky, but I am not sure about the left cut-off. It looks fine in the Iceland article but is too large - (set to default with upright tag?). Motmit (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you define as 'encyclopedic'? It's a word thrown around here without any concrete meaning. I replaced the two other photos because they were snapshots, and not of any photographic quality. This is the lagoon, is it not? As for the composition, I made the sky the majority of the photo for a reason. The composition would not work as well any other way. I have photos of the bridge and other elements centered, but they also look like very simple snapshots and that is why I am putting this photo above them and nominating it for featured picture. Besides, I based the composition off early modernist works of Monet, Manet, and Cezanne. They had a similar style to their paintings - with an off center subject and a large void in the pane. This, in turn was adopted from Edo japanese woodprints, among other works. I'm sorry if you prefer that I have a more traditional composition, then sorry. It's just that the world's greatest impressionist era artists figured out that kind of stuff just doesn't work as well. Nothing about the photo is an accident - I did everything I could to not only capture the lagoon, but to convey its mood and atmosphere. Lipton sale (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia not an art gallery. As an editor I am looking primarily for pics that support the text - if it's an active spa then the pics need to support that - I am afraid this pic does not tell me enough. Although I have brought a Monet into an article, it was only because it was a scene that Monet painted and I was discussing this and not because Monet had illustrated the details particularly well. I note the word shapshot seems to be a term of abuse in this forum, but countless people are putting in a lot of effort going out and trying to illustrate articles the best they can. This competition should be about encouraging people to think more about their "shapshots" rather than just replacing them with pure artwork. I think you missed my later comments as I did not criticize the composition. I said it was beautiful and I agree with you wholeheartedly that the picture needs the sky (as I said before) - cutting it off destroys the composition and does not make it more useful. I was just a little concerned at what was happening on the left at the end of the bridge. You have captured a mood and atmosphere - indeed echoing the Japanese illustrators, and again as I said there is a place for a mood and atmosphere pic in the Iceland article, but I do not think it illustrates the the Spa adequately. (and "Wow" to me is something people say when they see a firework with no enduring value) Motmit (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original, Oppose edit: The pic with the blue sky still retains the wow factor ... the edit isn't as eye catching as the original. --

Kalyan (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Original, Oppose edit Per Kaylan --St.daniel ^Talk 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original I'm also curious what this "encyclopedic" nonsense is about. Looking at the old pictures, they showed more snow than lagoon. This picture conveys that it's a lagoon and it's blue, and the fog shows it's active. It's a clear, well composed image that not only conveys "Blue Lagoon" but is also more engaging that previous photos. Maybe you've never actually read an encyclopedia, but those are all professional images taken by artists that are not just meant for readability, but to make the article engaging to the reader, something this picture does in spades. 98.216.158.111 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • please sign in to vote Thisglad (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder who is this IP from NJ who has made just this single edit to Wiki. Sure encyclopedias use professional images but they are there because the editors commissioned or selected them, not because the professionals pushed them in. Wiki is at some risk because it does provide an unrestricted platform to display a commercial photographer's portfolio - that is not denying good faith in this or any other case. Motmit (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)