Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circuilar Quay.jpg

Sydney Harbour Bridge

 * Reason:A photograph of the bridge (and only the bridge) has a lot of uses, complimenting File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg in many places. I think this panorama does a fairly good job. I didn't stay in Sydney for long as the weather wasn't too great.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney, List of attractions in Sydney, Tourism in Sydney, New South Wales, Australian Landmarks, List of historic civil engineering landmarks, Through arch bridge
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is a very good quality image, and I see you did some work placing it in 6 articles, but I find the current FP better, as it provides more valuable information about the context and has a more neutral background. I would rather support a similar quality daylight image. Elekhh (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The same argument might apply to the opera house image too. The bridge article itself has historically had plenty of discussion and arguing about the images in the article. The previous infobox image that was eventually settled on is pretty similar in composition to the one presented here, except lower quality. The panorama you refer to has ended up tacked to the end of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that panorama format generally doesn't fit so well in wiki articles, and often ends up removed, so the format of the nomination is better. However, I still think the FP is better (even croped) and that a daylight image would add more EV, and should be possible for this very much photographed bridge. I think it could be more aesthetic as well, as generally, the weather is quite good in Sydney :) Elekhh (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one of those subjects where there are so many different ways to photograph it (a bit like Tower Bridge in London) and every time, you'll get something a bit different (lighting and weather). I'm in agreement that the view from the northern side (ie current FP panorama) is the better angle because it has the ability to incorporate the Sydney skyline and the bridge isn't viewed quite so straight-on, but if the subject is just the bridge it isn't so important I suppose. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to Blues Head Reserve (Opera house intersected with bridge), Kiribilli (Its a bit side on if you aren't trying to get a skyline) and Ashton Park (Bridge Partially Obscured). A little research reveals that Fort Denison has the bridge partially obscured (and the last ferry is at 4:30pm). For both the bridge and opera house I think the best place may actually be from the naval base, but that wasn't a fence I was going to hop.
 * Weak Support. I was leaning towards abstaining on the basis that the focus seems to be on the colours rather than the bridge. But I think that for what it does, it's a good shot. I could see a daytime image also being featurable, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose - this is an iconic structure and both a day and night image would compliment each other - although I think a day image would be better in the article lead. However, given its similarity to the other FP, I'm still not sure that a case can be made. Perhaps a delist and replace? If some comment was made about why this is better, or a second night shot is necessary, I might lean towards a full support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that the article editors settled on a night shot, and not a wide panorama for the infobox image. This photo reflects what they seem to want. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a delist & replace is really the answer, as the existing FP is not strictly a Harbour Bridge photo, it's a panorama incorporating the Sydney skyline and Opera House too. Best not to compare to the FP - evaluate the image on its own merits as there is no current equivalent FP for this subject. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On its own merits, I find the colourfull lights of North Sydney and Luna Park are distracting. That's why I think the view from the northern side, or by daylight, would be better. Elekhh (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. For landmark bridges it's possible to justify more than one FP, especially if the photographs are demonstrably different.  Note the precedent.  Durova  409 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on that point. I didn't vote on the first two, but supported the last because it also illustrated the Thames (which is the subject of multiple FPs - in fact there's hardly a landmark in the City of London without one!). I do think that some kind of justification should be given. For example, saying that this is an image of the structure only, a panoramic view, or an image taken from the southern end, etc. Since Noodle Snacks hasn't given any reason I've had to make my own interpretation as to why it may or may not provide extra encyclopedic value that the existing FP doesn't have. I suspect we'll get this more often as FPC continues.... Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A reader of Sydney Harbour Bridge has limited use for a wide panorama beyond some context in the bridge location. Articles like Sydney and New South Wales may be better served by a panorama, but this image seems to compliment the Opera House Only shot in those articles. In articles like Australian Landmarks, List of historic civil engineering landmarks and Through arch bridge (the last two I've just added) a panorama is entirely the wrong thing to use. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- very nice shot, good EV. My only comment is that it's a pity that the reflection of the very bright light to the right of the bridge has ripples in the water which are sharply defined, whereas all the other reflections have a nice smooth quality to them. I'll leave it up to the creator to decide whether to fix this or not. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support well done photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)