Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oxford Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oxford Canal

The Oxford Canal as seen from Napton-on-the-Hill in Warwickshire, England
The Oxford Canal as seen from Napton-on-the-Hill in Warwickshire, England


Self nom - I took this a few days ago with my fancy new camera, and I'm rather proud of it, what does everyone else think. G-Man 21:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. G-Man 21:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rendered utterly impotent by the fields and the sky. Denni☯ 00:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A pretty enough picture, but the sky and its reflection are overexposed, and the grass in the foreground seems a tad oversaturated. The biggest problem, as Denni points out, is that this poorly illustrates the canal itself; your Image:Oxford Canal at Hillmorton.jpg does this better. —Korath (Talk) 03:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This picture just seems too busy picturing everything else but the canal itself. -- Longhair | Talk 14:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This sets this canal in its context. This was an industrial highway in its heyday and is now a pastoral by-water in the rich agricultural fields of Warwickshire. As to the sky - this is February in England; that's not overexposure, that what the sky is like. Although I prefer my images less bold and I would probably have avoided enhancing it, neverthless I would be proud of the image Velela 15:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Velela is right, the purpose of the photograph was really to show the canal within the setting of the landscape. So I surpose it's really a landscape picture, with the canal as its main feature rather than strictly a canal photograph. Perhaps I should have said that to begin with. Apart from that most of the other criticisms seem quite minor. G-Man 22:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If you look at the thumbnail, it does seem too little canal and too much field, but the full image itself is excellent, I think, in giving a good image of the canal in its "natural habitat". A closer image of the canal itself would be much less striking and brilliant, I think -- mostly just a higher-res image of water. If there's a way of taking a featurable picture of a canal, I think this has to be it. Jwrosenzweig 00:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 12:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Longhair that the picture simply wants to do too much. Also, while the subject might be notewothy, you'd have to know exactly what it is to appreciate it. There are dozens of scenes like this in England I'd suspect (there are where I'm living). If the purpose is to show the landscape, well I think there can be prettier pictures for that.Junes 14:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Doesn't it explain what it is on the caption? G-Man 18:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does, but what I mean is that I think Featured pictures should be able to stand on their own esthetically (except maybe diagrams). This is a really good picture, but in my opinion it's not as stunning as other Featured (landscape) pictures. Sorry. Junes 09:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I just came across this on the Warwickshire page and was impressed. This is quite a famous scene, I have seen other versions of this image on calenders and postcards, and this is at least as good as the profesional versions. IMO the canal is sufficiently prominent in the image to stand out as the main feature. Gem 20:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted, +5/-4 BrokenSegue 22:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)