Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Berwick viaduct

Berwick viaduct

 * Reason:high resolution image of an historic scene
 * Articles this image appears in:Berwick-upon-Tweed, Steam locomotive, Overhead lines
 * Creator:MickMacNee (User:Ultra7 on Commons)


 * Support as nominator --MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, possibly speedy close Lighting is poor, not bright enough. Very noisy, quality is low; looks like a snapshot. Compositionally it's a nice shot, though. If only it had the quality. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What can I say, it was a snapshot with a relatively cheap camera. Certainly in UK rail photography, those who do have the skill and equipment to do better, never upload to Commons, so on that score, it really is this or nothing as far as I can see. Not a single picture of the reverse journey has even been released on a usable license, let alone of any quality. As for not being light enough, it was obviously subject to the weather on the particular day, it can't be deferred to a sunnier day - as this is a late afternoon shot in March in Northern England, you are lucky it wasn't raining or even snowing given the temperature and clouds on the day. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, photography in the winter sucks. This image is very replaceable; take another during the summer when the weather's nicer. Happy snapping! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The shot is of the *first* southbound journey of this class over that viaduct for 50 odd years. A shot in the summer won't be the same in that respect, and in any event, Tornado isn't currently down for any runs to Scotland for the rest of the year. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like the image is trying to do to much -- if it's EV applies to the locomotive, I don't think it's sharp, close and detailed enough. If it's trying to show the viaduct, better lighting and perhaps showing a wider view would be desirable.  In either case better quality is needed.  I don't think it's a speedy close, though -- it seems like a valid nomination despite its faults. Fletcher (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not particularly aesthetically pleasing, and a little lacking in EV, as mentioned before. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose with friendly encouragement. The ev is there.  As Fletcher states, the photographer needs to prioritize which element is most important and focus on that, preferably with better lighting.  Durova Charge! 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading my comments, it sounded a bit bitey (though that's not what I intended). I too offer friendly encouragement and hope you keep snapping and offering photos to the project. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I was confused as to what I was focusing on till I read the caption, which is bad for an FP. Jerry teps (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above: It's a lovely picture, but it's not really featurable. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)