Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Parthenon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:14, 29 October 2007

Reason: Aesthetic composition, high technical quality. The picture is very encyclopedic because it clearly shows the columns, the metopes, and the roof tiles. Is an FP on Commons.
Proposed caption: The Parthenon, here viewed from the south, is a temple to Athena built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports.
Articles this image appears in: Classical Greece and ruins. Minor contributions to Parthenon and Pericles
Creator: Thermos

Support as nominator Malachirality 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not perfectly sharp. Part of the building is missing... Although including it would make for a less appealing. the sky is really nice. Overall I think it very artistic and deserves feature. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI do not like the composition.--Mbz1 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really great photograph, but it doesn't illustrate the Parthenon very well. Iorek 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great photo. Maddie ^talk 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Iorek, this photo doesn't illustrate the Parthenon well enough to be featured on Wikipedia. It is, however, of great technical and aesthetic quality, and is fully deserving of being featured on Commons. --Aqwis 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it would work better in ruins?--Here T oHelp 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would voters think that it would have greater enc. value in ruins? Am I allowed to just add the picture into the article? Would it be perceived as an underhanded edit that was made just to validate an FPC? --Malachirality 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I have a question. Could the image be inserted into other articles, such as the aforementioned ruins and/or (perhaps even more appropriately) Classical Greece, where the enc. emphasis is on the style, individual architectural elements, and the feelings evoked by the place, rather than on the Parthenon itself? Consensus says (and I agree) that this picture is not very enc. regarding the latter, but IMO it is very enc. regarding the former. I think this picture is one of en.wiki's more distinctive pictures and definitely has the ability to draw readers into an article, and I would like to see it featured. That being said, I don't want to do anything that comes across as inappropriate or manipulative. Thanks. --Malachirality 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think too much of the subject is cut off for Parthenon. I suggested ruins (Classical Greece is another great idea) because I got a sense of what a mighty structure is was compared to what it is. I like the juxtaposition of still-smooth surfaces with the pile of fallen rubble. I can see that the Greeks cared about their architecture but also that the building has seen a lot of wear-and-tear. This is the image's strong point; putting it in a better article is not manipulative, it improves the encyclopedia.--Here T oHelp 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition is beautiful, but the image is put together at the expense of the subject. It's missing a significant portion of the building and has no more detail than the more comprehensive images on the page. In my eyes, this combination torches the enc value because there's nothing to be learned about the subject from the photo. SingCal 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sufficiently illustrative of its subject. Pstuart84 Talk 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. I have added the picture to the articles ruins (replacing this File:NBerchemRuins.jpg painting) and Classical Greece (replacing a picture of the Parthenon--a fully enc. Parthenon pic occurs later in the article). Please take a look and assess the picture's stylistic and enc. contributions to those pages.
- I agree with these changes - that pic has great power to open an article, as it is very eye-catching - made me want to read more about ruins and Classical Greece when I opened those articles. --84.90.46.116 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Oppose''' The composition is beautiful, but the image is put together at the expense of the subject. It's missing a significant portion of the building and has no more detail than the more comprehensive images on [[Parthenon|the page]]. In my eyes, this combination torches the enc value because there's nothing to be learned about the subject from the photo. [[User:SingCal|SingCal]] 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose'''.  Not sufficiently illustrative of its subject. [[User:Pstuart84|Pstuart84]] <small>[[User talk:Pstuart84|Talk]]</small> 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. I have added the picture to the articles [[ruins]] (replacing this [[Image:NBerchemRuins.jpg|75 px]] painting) and [[Classical Greece]] (replacing a picture of the Parthenon--a fully enc. Parthenon pic occurs later in the article). Please take a look and assess the picture's stylistic and enc. contributions to those pages.
+**I agree with these changes - that pic has great power to open an article, as it is very eye-catching - made me want to read more about ruins and Classical Greece when I opened those articles. --[[User:84.90.46.116|84.90.46.116]] 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}