Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Osaka Castle

Osaka Castle
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 01:09:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:A good quality image of the Osaka Castle and its surroundings, holding a high encyclopedic value.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Osaka Castle. Very recently added to Architecture History of architecture . Under discussion for History of architecture.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:663highland


 * Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ  21  01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is an excellent photo with strong EV. Having stood exactly where this photo was taken from (or possibly a few floors lower in the Osaka museum building) I can attest that it's an excellent angle, and possibly the best available - when I visited the museum a local made sure that I took a version of this photo!). Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice! Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 05:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the buildings in the background are a little distracting, but unavoidable. Calhoun talk 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet
 * Oppose. It's a reasonable picture, but cut off at both sides and the bottom (I assume the castle basically finishes beyond the moat, so could probably allow for the picture ending in the water if we could see the whole width of the place). If it's just meant to be illustrating the main tower, then it doesn't do that particularly well (other images in the article do that better). This may well be the best place to photograph this place from but it would need either a wider angle lens, or to stitch a small panorama, in order to capture the whole castle. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per jjron. FWIW I feel the background buildings are actually a nice contrast from the foreground, and shows the change in architecture nicely. But I can't help but agree with the subject being cut off. gaz  hiley  11:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Photo shows a contrast between old and new, but in composition it's just a great photo. Colors are balanced and natural, the lines of the moat, castle walls, causeway, even the background skyscrapers all draw the eye to the main tower of the castle. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a comment, the castle was actually re-built fairly recently after being destroyed by bombing during World War II, so it may actually be newer than some of the buildings in the background! Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True; I guess I could say "old and new styles". Boneyard90 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with gazhiley about the nice contrast. I have boldly edited the article Architecture History of architecture and made this the second lead image. I think the image has strong EV for that article. --Pine✉ 05:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing my vote while a discussion about the image's appropriateness for History of architecture is happening. --Pine✉ 20:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where such discussion is happening? I see nothing on the talk of History of architecture. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's at User talk:Pine. Chick Bowen 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I realized like ten minutes ago. Seems like a user is challenging the inclusion of the picture in those articles. Although, I think that the primary EV on the article about the castle stays intact. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 01:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)