Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/concurrency (road)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Almost all four directions on one road

An extreme case of mind-boggling concurrencies, regular and wrong-way. This one shows the different directions of Interstate 40, Interstate 85 Business, U.S. Route 29, 70, 220, and 421 joined together in Greensboro, North Carolina.
An extreme case of mind-boggling concurrencies, regular and wrong-way. This one shows the different directions of Interstate 40, Interstate 85 Business, U.S. Route 29, 70, 220, and 421 joined together in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Reason
This is an extremely shocking and interesting piece of road. Only in extreme circumstances does roads need to have wrong-way concurrencies and ones that have entirely different directions.
Articles this image appears in
Death Valley (North Carolina), Concurrency (road), Wrong-way concurrency
Creator
MPD01605
  • Support as nominator — (→vishwin60 - review) 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can see why the image's content may be notable, but the image itself doesn't grab me. The telephone wires in back are distracting, and the backdrop of the image is fairly bland. Not really FP-quality stuff, I think. SingCal 08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. This is an interesting image, thus my (weak) support. Not much "wow", but it illustrates the concepts well, thus high enc. Quality is adequate for this type of image. --Janke | Talk 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It gets the point across, properly illustrates the articles, and is probably a rare situation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-10 13:28Z
  • Oppose based on composition. We can't see the road, which (together with its signage) ought to be the true subject of the photograph. Spikebrennan 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the telephone lines would be fine if there were a road, a line of trees, etc. also included to give a sense of the road's direction, but as is, this photo gets the point across well (and I agree that wrong-way concurrency is cool to see), but isn't really exceptional. From a technical standpoint, it could use some sharpening, contrast, and perhaps saturation. --Peter 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cool image, good for the article, however not enough artistic merit or good enough composition to warrant FP. As said above, maybe if the road was included? Zakolantern 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the rather un-spectacular nature of what is depicted, it would have to be an awesome picture to be featured. This one really isn't. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poorly illustrates the subject. Looking at this picture gives me little clue as to what a wrong-way concurrency is. —Pengo 02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. On the contrary, I can look at this picture and understand that what is being talked about is having conflicting route signs on a road. I think it's an interesting and appropriate image for the topic. └Jared┘┌t┐  13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment without getting into a COI here, there is clearly no need to see the road, given that there will be no sign bridges nearby showing a division point. Also, as this is designated an Interstate Highway, it is plain obvious that the road is a freeway. (→vishwin60 - soon will be User:O (possibly)) 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, it's obvious to anyone who's driven on an American highway that it's a road. And it was immediately obvious to me what wrong-way concurrency is, despite never having heard the term. My comment on the road was to contribute to the telephone lines' sense of perspective/direction, and a road would be a more appropriate inclusion than the phone lines. So I could see two tacts taken here--one including lines and road with the existing perspective, which could be more artistic, and another with no lines nor road and with horizontal and vertical perspective corrected, which would be more ENC. --Peter 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd agree that it's appropriate for the topic; for me it's a question of whether it's an exceptional image among those in Wikipedia. --Peter 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I had to question that as well, but I came to the conclusion that, while it may not be the greatest image as far as size goes, it offers a variety of types of route signs (State, Interstate, Business) with 3 of 4 directions. I think that it is probably tough to get a good shot of this landmark (seeing as how it's most likely on the edge of a bustling highway) so I think that the image we have here in front of us is one of the best we can get. That said, sure if someone comes around someday with a 20 MP shot of the sign we'll exchange FPs for that one, but I don't think that's likely anytime soon, and would hope that others would put their ridiculous opposition reasons behind in support of this image. └Jared┘┌t┐  16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)