Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chocorua dam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Chocorua dam
The Image was taken by Hossen27 in the village of Chocorua near Tamworth, New Hampshire on May 19, 2006. The Picture does not appear in any article at the moment, though it could be placed on the Tamworth article.
- Nominate and Support. - Hossens27 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It's a nice picture, but it has to be in an article before it can be considered. Also, you can't support photos you took yourself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who says you can't support photos you took yourself? What's the reasoning? People support their own photos all the time. -- Moondigger 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I have added the image to the article Tamworth, New Hampshire, were the dam is located. All the other images on the article are historic, making it the only recent image on the page and have removed my support because I took the image. Hossens27 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain. Big ole tree on the left kinda spoils it for me, but otherwise I like it. If the tree can be cropped out in a pleasing way, I'd probably switch to Support. --Billpg 09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll Support now. I like this one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support Beautiful image, good content, taken at a good place (its hardly his fauly where the trees grow.) And to my suprise there are very few if any compression artifacts which is rare for a wikipedia photo.--WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's okay... the blown sky bothers me a bit, and overall I don't find the scene particularly feature-worthy. However (as I indicated above), I'm pretty sure there's no prohibition against you supporting your own photo. Many nominations here are self-noms, and they almost always self-support as well. When I've closed nominations in the past I counted support votes cast by the photographer, as do the others AFAIK. -- Moondigger 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It says at the top of the page "if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor...", which I always took to mean that the photographer couldn't vote. I suppose under a strict reading you could interpret it to mean "four excluding the photographer, and the consensus including the photographer" but I find that rather a bizarre rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's rather bizarre myself, but I don't take it the way you do. I think it's meant to address a particular unusual situation: one in which there are very few votes cast for a given image. In other words, if there are only four votes cast, then the photographer's vote doesn't count... but if there are more than four votes cast, the photographer's vote does count. Personally I don't think there should be any such limitation. If a photographer supports his/her own photo, I'm fine with that, even in the extremely unlikely case that there are only four votes for a particular nomination. -- Moondigger 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Parsing that statement now leads me to think more along the lines you are, that the photographer's vote doesn't count no matter how many votes are cast. However I think it's a pointless restriction with no rational justification, and is contrary to the de facto implementation. Photographers self-nominate and support their own work all the time, and photographers' votes sometimes carry even more weight than others -- I've seen nominations ended immediately when a photographer opposes his/her own photo. Can somebody explain the rationale for not counting a photographer's vote on his/her own image? -- Moondigger 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page, because it's of wider interest than just this nomination. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Parsing that statement now leads me to think more along the lines you are, that the photographer's vote doesn't count no matter how many votes are cast. However I think it's a pointless restriction with no rational justification, and is contrary to the de facto implementation. Photographers self-nominate and support their own work all the time, and photographers' votes sometimes carry even more weight than others -- I've seen nominations ended immediately when a photographer opposes his/her own photo. Can somebody explain the rationale for not counting a photographer's vote on his/her own image? -- Moondigger 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's rather bizarre myself, but I don't take it the way you do. I think it's meant to address a particular unusual situation: one in which there are very few votes cast for a given image. In other words, if there are only four votes cast, then the photographer's vote doesn't count... but if there are more than four votes cast, the photographer's vote does count. Personally I don't think there should be any such limitation. If a photographer supports his/her own photo, I'm fine with that, even in the extremely unlikely case that there are only four votes for a particular nomination. -- Moondigger 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It says at the top of the page "if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor...", which I always took to mean that the photographer couldn't vote. I suppose under a strict reading you could interpret it to mean "four excluding the photographer, and the consensus including the photographer" but I find that rather a bizarre rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Nice photo. Could do with a better crop though. Nice looking senery.--VH-WAC 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral It doesnt really add to the article it in. It's not very encylopedic either. I like the pic though. -Ravedave 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Blown out sky, not the best angle with the tree on the left obscuring part of the subject matter, missing wow factor and no particularly outstanding addition to the article it is in. --Dschwen 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This picture does not add value to the article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.--Pedit 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Quite nice, but has blown sky (with a hint of what it could be in the top right corner) and a little busy; seems leaning slightly right to me. Outriggr 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I have cropped the image to remove some of the blown sky. I dont know if its much better but the blown sky was the main issue. Hossens27 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the original, actually. I think this one is too cropped. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. i like it but the tree is distracting Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- oppose per moondigger and ravedave --Vircabutar 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
