Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/London Millennium Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] London Millennium Bridge

Nice to see a moody monotone image of the London Millennium Bridge. It looks like this shot was taken before the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected. The picture's copyright status is a little odd, but looks more or less equivalent to Creative Commons by attribution. -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Was actually taken post-damping (24 May 2004) -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I stand wobble corrected. What I should have said was 'It looks like this shot was taken after the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected.' Thanks for the better quality version. -- Solipsist 06:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a big architecture fan so I gotta say yes. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. According to page refereced "Email me madmax@thunderdome.co.uk for licensing/purchasing enquiries" This does not say that we can use it as the tag on picture states. Did someone email him and he gave permission maybe? Cavebear42 22:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well Paul Lomax uploaded it. I doubt he emailed himself, but he did take the trouble to use a carefully chosen copyright tag. I think we are OK. -- Solipsist 23:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice, bit the image is compressed way too much to 41KB making JPEG artifacts clearly visible. Will support if a higher quality version is uploaded and the license is changed to something more standard. Janderk 08:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I see that a much better image with a clear license has been uploaded. Janderk 11:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. nice shoot but a better quality of the picture would be better. Chmouel 10:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - really bad quality (and small) JPEG. (this has been fixed, I see) ed g2s • talk 19:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better quality now, but still looks a bit far too heavily photoshopped, there's a unnatural white-glow around the top of St. Paul's for example. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed now - well spotted. I didn't do a very good job with the dodging on the spire (to correct darkness from the grad) first time around. -- PaulLomax 23:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Opposed - agree 100% with Janderk. -- ChrisO 18:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I have uploaded a larger version of the JPEG, based on the full-size version found on Paul's website. I have also emailed the photographer to ask for permission to license it under the CC-BY-SA. Let's wait for his response so we can evaluate a proper quality image or none at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

License is now CC-BY-NC-SA - hope this helps. Thanks for the support -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned in my email, we cannot accept NonCommercial content on the Wikipedia, let alone nominate it for Featured picture. If you can't provide us with a Commercial license this nomination will be retracted. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 12:11, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. The picture is now licensed under CC-BY-SA, thank you Paul! I would like to note that the tally for the updated large high-quality photo is now 3-0, not counting oppose votes cast for the initial small version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:14, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, good work on the licensing issues. Lorax 22:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Alphax (talk) 07:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very clean lines, excellent contrast - a great opportunity to show what monochrome can do. Denni☯ 21:25, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ugen64 02:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +10/-1. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:25, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)