Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lisbon - Vasco da Gama tower.jpg

Vasco da Gama tower in Lisbon, Portugal.
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 23:19:43 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality picture, which illustrates an important tower of the capital city in Portugal.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Vasco da Gama Tower
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Paolo Costa Baldi


 * Support as nominator -- Paolo Costa  23:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Tower is not referred to at all in text of Lisbon article and then the other one is a low view stub.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The image actually has higher EV in Vasco da Gama Tower. However, I dislike the perspective, it seems like you are aiming up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually don't mind the angle, and I think this has been very well composed. The EV is pretty clear in Vasco da Gama Tower; if TCO doesn't like it, he's welcome to nominate it for deletion. If not, his comments should be ignored. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to hurt any individual here. Am trying to engage with the content and think about service.  If you all start throwing out my votes, that is certainly an option and I understand.  But then I stop reviewing pictures.  I worry you end up with a small clique then, just looking at only a few aspects of photos and doing only a few sorts of images (many very obscure) and it hurts your program more than helps it.  No big deal...and I won't be angry if that is how it goes down.  Peace.  TCO (Reviews needed) 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue that J Milburn is raising is not that your opinion isn't valued, but that !votes need to address the well established Featured picture criteria. At the moment many (most?) of yours don't. You seem to be evaluating the images against a single criterion (5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article), but then even ignoring most of that and adding your own value judgement on whether you find it to be a worthy enough article. Insufficient EV is a valid oppose reason, but it's pretty hard to argue that when this tower has its own article, especially when it's not just a one or two line stub that was created yesterday (created in 2005 FWIW). If you think the article is unworthy, then as Milburn says you can nom it for deletion. If you think the criteria are wrong then that is fine, but you can't change them just by creating your own criteria for voting, you need to get a consensus, which you could start by initiating a discussion at WT:FPC, and then going from there. In the meantime you need to engage with the actual criteria. --jjron (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I am generally in agreement with J Milburn on the angle.  upstate NYer  04:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)