Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Andriyivskyy Uzviz

Andriyivskyy Descent
I found this image while looking at Andriyivskyy Descent and I thought it illustrated the subject very well. I personally find it stunning, and the dip of the "descent" visually intriguing. The colors are clean and clear and the brush near the bottom of the image isn't too distracting.

Created by User:DDima.


 * Nominate and support. - Keitei (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, due to size. Too small. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?)  15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I contacted the uploader. Perhaps a larger one can be found.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, due to trees on picture and nothing notable pictured. --TAG 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability of a subject is not a valid opposition if the subject has an article, and both those buildings do. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-09-10 16:30Z
 * Castle has no own article - it's mere a section. While I can agree that one of my reasons is invalid - second one still apply - trees is an issue. --TAG 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me explain: I don't believe it needs to have a separate article. The picture shows four main (out of many) famous attractions of Kiev: Zamkova Hora (or is it Lysa Hora, doesn't matter because both surround the descent), Castle of Richard Lionheart, St. Andrew's Church, and the descent itself. Also, you really cannot get another picture like this very easily because you are standing on top of a hill in the middle of a woody forest...unless you are in a helecoptor, chances of which are very small. IMHO, the photograph is better with the trees, because the give the overall atmosphere of the neighnouring area and the descent...otherwise it would look too empty. —dima/s-ko/ 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice scene but too small, trees obscuring too much of the frame and significance of the image is perhaps questionable. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Diliff. Nauticashades 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually it is not my photo, I got it from an author who gave his permission to use his photographs. I do like the photo very much, which is one of the reasons I put it into the Andriyivskyy Descent article:)) I disagree with the above comment nothing notable pictured by TAG.Odessa. You may not think there is nothing notable there as you are from Odessa (I may not know of anything in Odessa, as I was never there), but basicly everyone in Kiev knows of the descent (it is a popular destination point for tourist), the Castle of Richard Lionheart (on the left), and the St. Andrew's Church, designed by Bartolomeo Rastrelli. —dima/s-ko/ 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every location in the world has own history. History make each of then unique. But not every location then pictured is unique. This one is nothing but set of houses and church - thich can be found anythere else and people will hardly recognise it then will see next time. In my opinion Odessa Opera Theater picture will NOT be notable, but Potemkin stairs, Odessa Port or Sydney Opera House will be. It's just my opinion - this is why we have voting here, not a commitiee. --TAG 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Diliff HighInBC 21:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Diliff. -- Tewy  23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, because none of the opposition makes even the slightest bit of sense.--SB | T 04:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is too small, but I agree that it is an absolutely lovely picture and, even if I've never heard of the place, it sure seems like a nice place to visit and worthy of a FP if larger. InvictaHOG 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Beautiful image, shame about the resolution. Would support higher res --Fir0002 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose i would support it if it was a higher res -- ZeWrestler  Talk 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can try to contact the photographer to ask if he would like to give us a higher resolution picture... —dima/s-ko/ 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the picture; with higher resolution, I'll support.--Riurik (discuss) 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like the angle and the color. AndonicO 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Just like the size is not that important for FAs, I don't think resolution is crucial for FPs. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As per Ghirlandajo. Odessaukrain 15:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FAR too small. At this distance, all of the interesting detail in the architecture is lost. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose low resolution - Marmoulak 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC).


 * 'Comment. I am currently awaiting a responce from the author of the photograph. —dima/s-ko/ 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)