Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Island Archway, Great Ocean Rd, Victoria, Australia - Nov 08.jpg

Island Archway on the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, Australia.
Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015  at 08:28:55 (UTC)
 * Reason:EV + HQ
 * Articles in which this image appears:Victoria, Geography of Victoria (recently added), Geology of Victoria (recently added) and Great Ocean Road (recently added)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:


 * Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As lovely and technically good this picture is, it's rather oddly placed in the two articles, as neither the Great Ocean Road or the Island Archway are mentioned or referred to, and as such the EV isn't there surely? There's no apparent link to the articles this is in when looking at the description and then the article - only an assumption that this must be an example of the types of landscape being talked about... gaz hiley  09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. It used to be in the Great Ocean Road article, but as usual, good images get replaced with bad images over time. I don't have the energy to constantly trawl through old articles re-adding my images. But it could easily be re-added. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I see that Alborzagros has already re-added it to Great Ocean Road. I'll include it in the list of articles above. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate matters even further, I've found that since this photo was taken in 2008, it's actually partially collapsed, and now looks like this. ;-) So... It still has some EV in terms of showing a 'before' photo, but the caption(s) would need to be amended. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I agree with you that its placement in Geology of Victoria and Geography of Victoria is a bit awkward, given it's the only image in either article. It's hard for one image to represent the whole geology and geography of a state the size of the UK... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replacement done now. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments &#208;iliff ... gaz hiley  17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Although it's a large file, resolution doesn't seem very fine. Sca (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. It's pretty sharp for me. Only the foreground is a bit out of focus. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess I was looking at shrubbery at edge of cliff in, yes, the foreground (at full res.). Sca (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – I think it's sharp enough and it is very WOW. Hafspajen (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support  – Who am I to quibble with someone from Down Under? Sca (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly... That's not a knife.... this is a knife! &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yuh don't scare me, mate! Sca (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose On the basis that &#208;iliff  has confirmed this is no longer an accurate picture of the natural structure... I will change my vote if the nomination and description that appears in the article is amended to reflect this is no longer an accurate view... Shame, as it's a lovely picture...  gaz hiley  17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sorry but, having now seen the other pic, I have to agree with gazhiley. Sca (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, time for an article for this. Then it will have EV, both like before and after, or it will go down in the sink, and that would be a big shame. Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is it just me, or does it look washed out? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It does a bit. It's the result of old-school HDR processing methods. I would go back and update it with better processing, but I lost all my old photos in a hard drive crash last year. So we're stuck with whatever we have on Commons prior to that. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  00:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd. Your other old HDRs don't seem to have the same issues. Maybe it's the bright sunlight? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the interior of a church (and for the other reasons stated above). Belle (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Second thought, isn't that the fact that the arch is gone making this picture RATHER VALUALBE? The other day we featured a lion sculpture that was gone forever. Now we are opposing this one for the same reason? Hafspajen (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree with you. It's called Island Archway because it was an arch. I think as long as the article shows a before and after photo, it's useful. But that does, as you said above, require an article written on it to really have EV. It doesn't have much EV elsewhere as an historical photo (such as the Great Ocean Rd article) as it's too obscure a subject.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it must be books, tourist brochures, local info, anything... Hafspajen (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This picture is better that the Flickr one mentioned above, and yes, it is valuable because it shows why it was called that way. But it needs an article. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral Definition is well, but the focus of soil and grey grass on the bottom of picture aren't accurate, the overcast weather also affecting composition and viewer's mood, should possibly retake in fine weather days. Exploringlife (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support –Jobas (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 11:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)