Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cologne Panorama

Cologne Panorama
Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 21:09:08 (UTC)
 * Reason:Already a featured image on Commons, excellent composition.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Cologne, Cologne Cathedral, Great St. Martin Church , Hohenzollernbrücke, Portal:North Rhine-Westphalia
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Ahgee


 * Support as nominator --  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 21:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous look, but the road at the left draws too much the attention. Abisharan (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Spectacular and truly beautiful. Bravo! Greg L (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It would seem to me that some of the notable sites in the image (such as Great St. Martin Church, Cologne Cathedral for starters) should include this panorama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The image has now been included in three additional articles where it is relevant.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 23:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dubious value in most of those articles, in fact could be a negative, especially in Cologne Cathedral & Great St. Martin Church. Please avoid pleas to flood articles with these images - this has been discussed somewhat extensively recently, see here for example. Panoramas in particular should be used somewhat sparingly. --jjron (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment The colors merit some discussion. They look mostly ok to me, but the Cologne Cathedral looks almost like a 3D rendering, possibly because of still too much DR and a lack of shadows. On a minor note, I see two white dots, one to the left of both the church and the cathedral, that could be cloned out. Don't see other stars in the image so I'm not sure what they are. Fletcher (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This adds value to WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Theres some pretty obvious stitching errors in the water and distracting reflections (looks like this was shot through a window, although it looks like from a sidewalk, not sure what the reflections are in the water, purple below the bridge). — raeky ( talk 03:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t call it “stitching errors” but rather “stitching artifacts”. It’s pretty much impossible to shoot a multi-shot panorama with water in the scene without stitching artifacts in the water. The purple below the bridge seems to be from a purple-lighted building behind the bridge. That’s the part I think makes this picture way-cool. Those purple lights, which peek through the bridgework, also appear to be responsible for a few instances of lens flair in front of the water. Greg L (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is some tweeks one can do to lessen the fairly harsh lines in the water from the individual shots. I'm aware of the technical difficulties of that, since water is dynamic and moving, but I'm sure it can be fixed. If those are lens flairs then maybe it's not a big deal... I just felt that unless the visible lines in the water from the stitching are corrected I think it lacks FP quality. I could support it if those are fixed somehow, or made less obvious.— raeky ( talk 04:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The two white dots have been removed, they definately weren't stars and weren't present in the earlier version of the image.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 23:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I hear what's being said above, but... I love this. It adds a lot to the article, is of good quality and easily has that "wow" factor that we're not allowed to talk about. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Yeah, wow is the word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Raeky. --Desiderius82 (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Weak Support, otherwise Strong Oppose  on the condition that this image is removed from all but the Cologne article... If I want to find out more about the Church and Cathedral, this picture will not give me any useful information. It's a nice picture, hence the support, but the EV is far too low for it to be of any more use than a pretty picture in the rest. I notice it has already been deleted from the Portal:North Rhine-Westphalia article! The weak support is because of the over exposure on the lights - the bridge is the best example... The orange/yellow lights look more like Thermal Imaging than lights... Plus the above mentioned purple reflections. Gazhiley (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok well I see your point and the image has been removed from the Cologne Cathedral and Great St. Martin Church articles. However I think the image does have a place in the Hohenzollernbrücke page as it is currently the only image on the article where the full length of the bridge can be seen from a side view and at night and a significant portion of the panorama is focused on it.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll change my vote then to weak support, as per my technical issues with this picture... Thank you... Gazhiley (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW have also struck off the Portal link as per my above comments, the picture has already been removed from this article previously... Gazhiley (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (I am not a voter, as I am not looking at the technical aspects of the photo). I am here to comment upon and disagree with the removal of the photograph from the Cologne Cathedral article. Previously the article had a photo of the cathedral from across the river. As a major contributor to the article, I removed that photo when the panorama went in. The option was to remove the panorama as two such was a superfluity. The reason why I preferred the panorama was that the article specifically discusses the role of the cathedral and its two enormous spires as a landscape element. The cathedral is not a stand-alone item. It sits there, with the bridge, the tower, the river and the accompanying buildings. It was left standing, by the allies, probably because of its landmark value. And more recently, this same landmark value has been protected by World Heritage status and a ruling that bans any high-rise building near it. The panoramic view tells the reason why this is the case, better than any words can express. I want it back in the article.
 * And, Ghaziley, I think you are out of order, making your support "Conditional" upon the photograph being removed from such and such an article. It is either a good photograph or it is not. The writers of the specific articles either see a use for it or they don't. Amandajm (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the above comment directed at Gaziley there has been extensive discussion here recently with one user favouring spreading images very widely, which is not necessarily in line with FPC criteria or general consensus. His comments are based around this. Also you may not appreciate that one of the key criteria at FPC is 'encyclopaedic value', i.e., how useful it is to WP, not just 'whether it's a good photo or not'. And yes the writers of articles should decide whether it's useful, but that's what the discussions have been based on, that these images are being scattered about articles, but not by the regular article writers, and the usage is often questionable. --jjron (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With 5+1 positive and 2 negative votes, why is this promoted? Desiderius82 (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5.5 support and 2 full oppose, 7.5 total votes, 73%, isn't 75% the threshold? — raeky ( talk 11:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically FPCs are judged on "consensus" according to WP:FPC, and "consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support". Two-thirds ≈ 66.67% < 73%.  Jujutacular  T · C 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)