Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oresund Bridge

[[Media:Oeresund_Bridge.jpg|Oresund Bridge]]
A great image to illustrate the article about the Oresund Bridge, showing the full extent of the bridge and the artificial islet, missing only the tunnel (which is underwater, and hard to capture from the air! :). I think the composition is perfect, and illustrates the article completely. I can't judge the technicalities, and leave that up to you. Licenses GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0.
 * Nominated by: &#9999; Sverdrup 16:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Looks lovely in hires, but I find the detail is totally lost in the thumbnail.  Which should we be voting on here? -- GWO
 * IMHO, only on the full image. The license is confusing though, needs clarification first. -- 130.89.169.11 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral. we should be voting on hi-res. I'm confused on the licence.  Is it GNU/CC or is the orig photographer reserving rights?  Who is original photographer and how would i contact him? Cavebear42 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarifications via the swedish image description page; The description implies that the uploader took the picture. He asserts that he retains his copyright (which is correct), and that the picture uploaded is available for use under either GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.0 license. He also says that for other licenses and a higher resolution image, please contact the photographer. &#9999; Sverdrup 01:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've put in the links to the Swedish source - please correct if I have it wrong. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A bit murky on the horizon, but surprisingly clear if it was taken through the windows of an a plane. Rather a good illustration of this sort of bridge. The low angle sunlight really helps to define the bridge. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Odd color balance and visible JPEG artifacts. If you're the photographer, I think a corrected version would look great. Rhobite 21:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Rhobite. Also dont like the scummy black stuff in the lower left of the image. Cant see how you could have gotten rid of them, but they mar the picture. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Sverdrup, thanks for nominating my contribution. The image is dual-licensed under both the GFDL and the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. :I am reserving rights - I assert ownership of the copyright, but give broad rights under the licenses that the image is licensed under. Keeping ownership of the copyright and licensing a work under licenses such as the GFDL is not a ontradiction; indeed, if the image was released into the public domain, giving licensing terms would be largely meaningless. :I would appreciate feedback on how to make this clearer, as to not cause unnecessary confusion.
 * As to Cavebear42's comments: I have a user account on Wikipedia, and it's easy to contact me through Wikipedia. I could, of course, publish my full name and e-mail address, but would prefer not to as I receive plenty of spam already. I could, when assigning copyright, publish my full name, but fail to see that this is necessary. Comments?
 * Rhobite: the contrast has been stretched, but the artifacts you see are mostly the work of NeatImage.
 * Fir0002: the "black stuff" in the lower-left corner is actually the islet Saltholm - the artificial islet Pepparholm was named in reference to this islet. I agree that it doesn't look particularly appealing, and could, if desired, work on smoothing it out.
 * Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fir0002: the "black stuff" in the lower-left corner is actually the islet Saltholm - the artificial islet Pepparholm was named in reference to this islet. I agree that it doesn't look particularly appealing, and could, if desired, work on smoothing it out.
 * Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 20:32, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice shot -- Jpo 18:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even in the full picture, I find it hard to discern the details of the bridge. Enochlau 09:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. May support a larger version. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  14:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What size would you prefer? -- dpol 17:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Usually I'd say at least 1024 but in this case it may need to be higher to get some detail on the bridge. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  18:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I quite like the ugly island- looks like a Scottish one. Mark1 00:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * NOT promoted, +5/-5. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

