View source for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Landwasser Viaduct

===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Landwasser Viaduct|Landwasser Viaduct]]===
{{FPCnom/VotingEnds|1281468199}}<small>Voting period ends on <b>10 Aug 2010</b> at <b>19:23:19 (UTC)</b></small>
[[File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg|thumb|right|100000x260px|'''Original''' - The '''[[Landwasser Viaduct]]''' is a single track six-arched curved [[limestone]] [[rail transport|railway]] [[viaduct]].  It spans the [[Landwasser River]] between [[Schmitten, Graubünden|Schmitten]] and [[Filisur]], in the [[Cantons of Switzerland|Canton]] of [[Graubünden]], [[Switzerland]].]]
[[File:CH Landwasser 2.jpg|thumb|right|260px|'''Alt''' [[User:Dschwen|Dschwen]]'s picture showing both the tunnel and height.]]
[[File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt showing the tunnel.jpg|thumb|right|100000x260px|'''Edit 1''' Curves adjustment to reveal more of the rock face and tunnel.]]
;Reason:My last few nominations haven't started too well, so I hope this one will do a little better. To my eyes, the composition, angle, lighting and timing are all great. The quality is high, and the EV is clear- this is comfortably our best and most encyclopedic image of the viaduct. Caption copied from the article.
;Articles in which this image appears:[[Landwasser Viaduct]]
;FP category for this image:[[Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others|Places/Others]]
;Creator:[[Commons:User:Kabelleger|Kabelleger]] (David Gubler)

* '''Support as nominator''' --[[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) 
* '''Support''' Per nom, excellent image. Nice touch having the bridge on the train, too. I will admit it took a couple seconds to see the sixth arch though. [[User:Cowtowner|Cowtowner]] ([[User talk:Cowtowner|talk]]) 20:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
* '''Weak <s>support</s> oppose''' I think <u>[[:File:GlacierLandwasser.jpg|this]]</u> on the article about the entire [[Albula_Railway|rail line]], which I believe is the SECOND HIGHEST IN THE WORLD after one in China, is a better photograph. I wish the Sun had been at a better angle to show off that beautiful "Wish you were here!" postcard background scenery. --[[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="727A96">I'ḏ</font>]][[User_talk:IdLoveOne|<font color="FF4C52">'''♥'''</font>]][[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="4F5DFF">One</font>]] 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
**Hmm, really not liking the background, the rest is ok, but I don't really think this version should be a FP. --[[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="727A96">I'ḏ</font>]][[User_talk:IdLoveOne|<font color="FF4C52">'''♥'''</font>]][[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="4F5DFF">One</font>]] 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
***I saw that one when I had a sniff around. Yeah, that's a lovely postcard, but it doesn't give an accurate impression of the height of the thing. I feel that the one I nominated has a far higher EV, and is far more appropriate as the lead image. In the second image, my eyes are drawn more to the landscape and woodland, rather than the viaduct. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Yeah, great composition, lighting and timing with this one. Manages to be both visually interesting and encyclopaedic. [[User:Diliff|<font color="#006633">&#208;iliff</font>]]   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187;</font><small> [[User talk:Diliff|<font  color="#006633">(Talk)</font>]]</small> 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This is a fine picture and it does what it is supposed to: illustrate “Landwasser Viaduct” (and thus meets the EV requirement). I agree with Diliff that it has great composition, lighting and timing. But, because of the necessary smallness of the train (due to capturing an entire trestle), I don’t think this is sufficiently “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” It lacks that dramatic or grand nature I would expect of outstanding railroad-related photography. And, as I mentioned below, we now have a ''year-long'' backlog of FP-awarded pictures waiting in the queue for their day on the main page. We should be awarding FP status to no more than one picture a day; ''less'' if we are to ever clear up that queue. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 02:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
**I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but if by backlog you mean picture of the day I'm not so sure that featuring and picture of the day should be considered the same award; I think that after a pictures get ''featured,'' meaning that we acknowledge it's quality, value and such that after that we should decide which ones we like above the rest to award with POTD. I don't think that something coming through here necessarily means we have to start thinking ahead to if we want it as POTD. --[[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="727A96">I'ḏ</font>]][[User_talk:IdLoveOne|<font color="FF4C52">'''♥'''</font>]][[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="4F5DFF">One</font>]] 02:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
**Maybe we should have a little reel on the mainpage of like 5 or so if the most recently featured pictures, or a link to the [[WP:Goings-on]]s. That way each image gets its day on the mainpage, but not necessarily POTD. --[[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="727A96">I'ḏ</font>]][[User_talk:IdLoveOne|<font color="FF4C52">'''♥'''</font>]][[User:IdLoveOne|<font color="4F5DFF">One</font>]] 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
***As far as I know, all of “Today’s Featured Picture” have “Featured Picture”-status (gold stars) and got their angels’ wings here at FPC. That’s one of the ‘benies’ (and great fun) of creating or nominating an FP picture: seeing it on the darn Main Page for a day. We’ve been chronically awarding an average of more than one FP status per day to the point that the queue is now more than one year long. If we keep that up, the process(es) ''somewhere'' will have to be revised—perhaps triage on the queue. My approach is to first be a tad more selective with candidates here. I’m now looking for photographs that make me really stop and stare. This one, while fine, just ain’t one of those. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)<p>'''P.S.''' I think your second post has merit. Why call it “Today’s Featured Picture”? It could be called “Today’s Featured Pictures.” Plural. Anyway, I don’t propose at the moment to upset the apple cart too much. But I certainly have conviction that being especially discerning has no downside given the year-long backlog for getting FPs onto the Main Page. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 03:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
****This may or may not be an issue, and it warrants discussion if you are concerned (personally, I don't see it as a problem, but, like I say, that's something for discussion). However, changing your own personal criteria when reviewing images is not the way around this. Our concern here should be judging whether this image meet the criteria- if you're concerned about our process, or our criteria, or anything like that, it is an issue for the talk page. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
***** Quoting you: {{xt|However, changing your own personal criteria when reviewing images is not the way around this.}} Gee, no “IMHO” on that bit? Horse hoey. All it means is increasing my threshold for what I consider to be truly outstanding quality photography. This process is ''extremely'' subjective.  ''<u>And</u>'' the processes are likely in need of revising, otherwise we’re just going to constipate the process for getting Featured Pictures featured on the Main Page. For some of us, getting a picture actually featured on the Main Page is, understandably, just as—or ''more''—important than that little gold star in the corner. Making people wait a year is getting out of hand. Yes, we need to discuss this in greater detail on Talk.  [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
******The lack of "IMHO" is kind of my point- at this stage, it's all just opinions. If we want to deal with it, we're going to need to have a discussion about it, so ''any'' action to deal with it would be inappropriate. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
******* Well… We will just have to agree to disagree as to whether you are entitled to dictate to me '''''what''''' I may think or '''''how''''' I may express my thoughts here on Wikipedia. My FPC opinions, whether they are my *new* criteria (apparently made in China in your view) or my *old* criteria, are as *appropriate* as anyone else’s around here—''even yours.'' I suggest you take those first two sentences to heart in case you are tempted to openly declare that my litmus test for judging whether a picture should be featured on our Main Page is somehow “inappropriate.”<p>The FPC rules call for us to judge FPC nominations to see if we think they ''“are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being <u>eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article</u>.”'' I am now placing a premium on that “eye-catching” bit from hereon; no free passes for pictures that *have no serious faults* but are really rather ‘ho{{nbhyph}}hum’ and are unlikely to make our visiting, attention-deficit-afflicted Internet audience actually stop and stare.<p>I truly believe by ensuring we promote only truly eye-catching images (the best of the best) for the Main Page, we are <u>making Wikipedia a better place and are doing our I.P. readership a favor</u>. You are perfectly free to vote ''your'' conscience; I’ll *allow you that.* ;-)<p>What does this mean for ''this'' picture of the viaduct? As I stated in my vote, it’s a fine picture. But that little train in the distance doesn’t have that ''bold'' feeling I expect of fine, top-quality, railroad-related photography and is incapable of eliciting the “stop & stare” reaction from our visiting I.P. readership. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
********What you say is reasonable. However, if you feel that there is something wrong with the process, you shouldn't take it out on individual images. I am reminded of someone who used to vote to keep every delist nomination, because (s)he thought that the very idea of delisting a featured picture was flawed. To my eyes, this was not the right way to go about things- if (s)he thought the process was flawed, then (s)he should have made efforts to change the process. Like I say, if this is genuinely a concern for you, I implore you to start a discussion on the talk page. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
********* Maybe there is nothing wrong with the process. It could be we all just need to understand ''the current circumstances'' and adapt instead of pretending we can keep on doing as we’ve been doing. A lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, [[User_talk:Greg_L#Featured_picture_candidate|this animation of mine]] took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. Now people are creating pictures and it will take a year or more. That’s an eternity in Wikipedia-time. And now that we understand what we’ve done here, we can individually consider each nomination and decide whether it is ''really and truly'' so darn eye-catching that it ought to add to a mile-long queue. ''That'' is simply the reality of the situation and it is good that we all keep that in mind when we vote on pictures. I’ve seen vote comments lately that were something like “Support: No serious flaws.” Pardon me; but I have a different screen, and it doesn’t entail [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHowcheng&action=historysubmit&diff=376675746&oldid=376670081 flooding Howcheng with ''even more'' bug pictures] for a while. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 21:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
**********Again, valid. Not sure I completely agree, but that's not really the discussion for here. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 21:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as Diliff. PoTD is NOT the reason why we choose FPs; it is simply a by-product and arguments based on PoTD are IMO ridiculous. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']][[User Talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|<small>(''talk'')</small>]] 05:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', due to the darkness you can't see that it's coming out of a shear cliff face tunnel, which is, imho, far more impressive then it's height. [[:File:GlacierLandwasser.jpg|Shows the tunnel]], but neither picture effectively shows the height. For that reason I have to oppose, theres bound to be a better way to shoot this that shows (a) the tunnel clearly and cliff and (b) the height of the structure. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Raeky|<span style="background:#669900;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">raeky</span>]][[User talk:Raeky|<span style="background:#99CC66;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</span> 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
** [[:File:CH_Landwasser_2.jpg|?]] --[[User:Dschwen|Dschwen]] 13:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
***I '''Support''' [[User:Dschwen|Dschwen]]'s alt. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Raeky|<span style="background:#669900;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">raeky</span>]][[User talk:Raeky|<span style="background:#99CC66;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</span> 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
*** That certainly is a better angle and lighting, is there anywhere you've not photographed?! —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Raeky|<span style="background:#669900;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">raeky</span>]][[User talk:Raeky|<span style="background:#99CC66;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</span> 13:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
*** Now [http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/GlacierLandwasser.jpg ''that’s'' (GlacierLandwasser)] what I’m talkin’ about. I could get behind something like that if it had more pixels; particularly if it was framed a bit lower to show more of the viaduct—I keep reflexively trying to tilt my head down. That’s a really nice picture. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I like it very much.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 06:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
*Weak '''Support''' It is an excellent illustration of the subject, and the height of the structure is visible. The only significant weakness I see is the tunnel entrance being in shadow. --[[User:Elekhh|Elekhh]] ([[User talk:Elekhh|talk]]) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' I think raeky's point is important here, I keep tilting my head trying to see the dark mountain side. -- [[User:Bydand|b''yd''and]]<small>•</small><small><font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">[[User talk:Bydand|'''talk''']]</font></small>  20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I disagree that this conveys the height of the viaduct - you cannot see the base of the viaduct - for all we know this could be an iceberg-esque picture (only seeing the top 1/8th)... That combined with the overly dark background and the tunnel being in shadow means I cannot support sorry...  The only picture that shows the depth fully is the one that <s>Greg</s> Dschwen found... [[User:Gazhiley|Gazhiley]] ([[User talk:Gazhiley|talk]]) 08:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
**Why don't we just boldly put in [[User:Dschwen|Dschwen]]'s picture as an alt. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Raeky|<span style="background:#669900;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">raeky</span>]][[User talk:Raeky|<span style="background:#99CC66;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</span> 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Added an edited version to the nomination. [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 00:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I really like that “Alt”. I don’t need to see the rest of the viaduct to understand what it looks like. Why not nominate that one alone separately and start over fresh with just that one? [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
**Agreed that a separate nom would be best. I'll happily withdraw this one if you want to change the infobox image for a separate nom. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
***I don't think the alt cuts it, with blown highlights across two of the carriages. [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
****Well, bring on the new nomination. The cars have titanium-dioxide white paint and are in full sunlight; there’s gonna be blown highlights there. If one wants to see detail in ''that'', get out the welders goggles. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
*****Actually, one of the ones that's blown is painted red. :) [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --[[User:Makeemlighter|Makeemlighter]] ([[User talk:Makeemlighter|talk]]) 21:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
{{-}}
<noinclude>[[Category:Featured picture nominations]] [[Category:Featured picture nominations/August 2010]]</noinclude>