Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Camp Cove in Watsons Bay, Sydney

Camp Cove in Watsons Bay, Sydney

 * Reason:An informative photo that provides a good view of the houses, beach, bays and recreation of Watsons Bay in Sydney on a warm sunny weekend.
 * Articles this image appears in:Watsons Bay
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wladyslaw (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the picture tilted? Muhammad (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I've looked at that before and it seems to be an optical illusion from the coastline and also because the horizon is not visible. All the vertical lines (edges of buildings) seem vertical everywhere. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an optical illusion. The land around Sydney Harbour is quite hilly, and the land on the 'horizon' in this picture looks to slope down quite a bit to the water, thus giving it the illusion of being a bit tilted. --jjron (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Caspian blue 19:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Technical quality is there but I'm less sure of the EV -- it looks like almost any resort beach. Plymouth Rock at least has a rock (which itself is rather underwhelming!) but I don't see anything historical depicted here.  If the  geography is what is encyclopedic I'd prefer a wider view of the surrounding area, if possible.  The picture of The Gap for example shows some of the topography of the area and the relation to Sydney.  Fletcher (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the location Watsons Bay, not the history of Sydney. Anway, I don't think you need a rock or monument so the tourists can have their photo taken next to it, for the site to be historical. It just happens to be a historic site. Oh, and I've been to the Plymouth Rock too, and I agree, it is very underwhelming! Perhaps the caption is slightly misleading for the nomination, as the mention of historical significance is not to 'sell' the nomination, but just as a little interesting aside, so yes, the image mainly to illustrate the location/geography. It isn't a beach resort, it is a normal (albeit nice and quaint) harbourside suburb in Sydney. No hotels, no resorts. It is basically 100% residential. If you say it looks like any resort beach, so be it, but it is what it is, a local relatively non-touristy beach. I took another photo (see other versions on the image page) that was a wider angle but I wouldn't say it really shows more of the geography, as it shows less of Watsons Bay, but does have the bonus of showing the location relative to the city. I can't think of a location or way of showing more of the local geography than this image does. Yes, the image of The Gap (slightly misleading as The Gap is the space of water at the entrance to Sydney Harbour which is behind the photographer) shows more of the topography, but the composition is a little messy, has a number of stitching faults and doesn't show the beaches. Ironically that photo was taken by another random contributor on exactly the same day that mine was taken on. You can see the clouds over the same part of the city as in mine. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're mistaken Diliff. The Gap is the name used for the cliffs visible in the other image, best known for being a favoured suicide location, not the space between the heads at the entrance to the harbour. See The Gap, New South Wales. FWIW I can't help but wonder why the other contributor didn't add his picture to The Gap article (which is without an image), rather than the Watsons Bay article. --jjron (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I stand corrected, you're right. I always assumed it was the actual gap (logical to assume I suppose). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd always thought it a bit of a funny name for the cliffs, though never thought of it as a possible term for the opening to the harbour, but when I read your comment I thought that it probably was a pretty logical assumption to make. --jjron (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per Nom. --Fir0002 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Despite the busy nature of this type of picture its excellent quality and the colours are brilliant... Damn you tho Diliff every new pic you put on here makes my longing to go back to Aus even greater...  If you happen to venture to the north west at any time feel free to stop in on Broome and go crazy with ur camera! Mind you, I may ACTUALLY quit and emigrate after seeing those pictures! Gazhiley (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not sure how this location could be photographed much better, therefore seems to hold good EV, and quality is of course very good. If I'm not mistaken we can see a part of the city in the background, therefore also provides a context to Sydney - if so, then perhaps a little more to the right would have shown more and helped to satisfy at least one of Fletcher's concerns. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the picture; I guess I am just not convinced the location itself has a lot of EV. Fletcher (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Per above. I can see stitching errors on the waves in a place or two, but I think its practically impossible to avoid and no great loss Noodle snacks (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It took a long time to download, but worth it. Good quality and composition Muhammad (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Caption in image shows me enough EV, good quality.  Spencer MerryChristmas! 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

--Noodle snacks (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)