Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Primrose Hill

Primrose Hill
Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 07:31:22 (UTC)
 * Reason:A nice and illustrative panorama by talented Diliff
 * Articles in which this image appears:Primrose Hill, London
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My first thought on seeing this? Snapshot. Nice colours and whatnot, might have EV for a picnic or something, but doesn't really look like a hill and I don't see much EV for London Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The EV is by showing the view of London for one who is in Primrose Hill, and by displaying it as a public space. Tomer T (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Primrose Hill is a viewpoint and public green space; it isn't a hill/mountain that people admire by looking at it. Colin°Talk 13:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think this illustrates the subject well. It is a popular public space so the people are essential to the picture and he's lucky that they are all acting normally rather than looking at the camera or taking pictures themselves. Plus this is certainly a stitched pic and I can't see any errors. Did he tell everyone to sit still for a minute? There's great detail in the view of London and the picture has everything sharp from near to far. The weather was good and the sky clear enough to avoid the skyscrapers being lost in a haze. One negative is the slight distortion at the extreme edges of the skyline, where the buildings are angled outwards very slightly. If this could be fixed, using the originals, that would be great, but is a minor point in the overall picture. Colin°Talk 08:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crisco. Nothing special here. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose. Snapshotty. Might have good EV, except for the copse of trees in the middle is blocking the view of most of the field. Try reshooting 50 feet further to the right. Clegs (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole point of taking the photo from the top of a hill is that it's the top. You can't move 50 feet to the right without being half way down the hill and no longer having a vantage point. It's easy to say "snapshotty" without having any knowledge of what thought processes went into it. The EV, for whatever it's worth, is that it's the view from the top. Too bad if there are some trees in the way of the view to the bottom. That's the way they designed the park. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If you don't know the area it might be easy to say snapshotty, but if you do you'd know it captures the environment very well. It's a very clean and natural depiction of a very public place. Obviously taken at the top of the hill, which is the best vantage point for displaying it for what it's purpose is -- a viewpoint. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is for learning about things you don't already know, right? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is, but FPC is not. FPC is for judging images on the basis of what can be learned from them (EV), not judging them on what you think you know the subject/composition but are actually mistaken about. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  04:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And it seems like quite a few of us are saying that nothing can be learned here. Learning implies novelty, and Matthew Edwards referred explicitly to "if you do know it", which is not learning, it's knowing already. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment at all PLW2. I'm not sure that "learning" is a necessary requirement for FP. I've just had a pic of an everyday steam iron promoted. Who learned anything new there? But it is a good illustration IMO. Primrose hill is a viewpoint. For someone who hasn't been there, they will learn what the view from Primrose hill looks like. The photo has a nice composition where the folks are looking inwards rather than in random directions. This leads the eye towards the view. There's a real 3D depth to the photograph. I wish I took "snapshots" like this. Colin°Talk 09:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am baffled, frankly, that you apparently uploaded the steam iron image without thinking it would have some utility. Anyway, you're actually disagreeing with Diliff, who introduced the term "learning" as a criterion, above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Colin disagreed with me so much as had a different idea of what learning meant in this context. He never said it had no utility, that was you putting words in his mouth. Anyway, you seem to be deliberately missing the point, which is that nobody is saying you need to have been there before to appreciate the EV, they're simply saying that having been there makes you a little more qualified to comment on how representative it is of the subject. Some of the people you refer to who haven't been there have seemingly misunderstood the EV of the image, thinking that since it apparently doesn't look like a hill, it loses EV or that it's a failed attempt to illustrate London. It exists in the London article but the primary EV is for the Primrose Hill article where it is the lead image. You're also utterly wrong in my opinion when you say that learning implies novelty. You could possibly argue that novelty is desired quality of a FP but certainly not that it's a necessary component of anything educational. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but for the sake of the English language, I will have to insist that one cannot learn something one knows already. If you want to redefine the meaning of words, please don't expect to be able to communicate with other people. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again you fixate on one minor point (it wasn't even my own, I was just addressing it on behalf of Colin) which you have willingly misunderstood in order to discredit, while otherwise failing to address the body of the argument. So predictable. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all three of us are failing to communicate successfully here. Oh well. Colin°Talk 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regardless of whether this passes or not, I spotted a minor stitching fault along the horizon, as well as the slight bowing of the horizon as mentioned above, so I'll try to re-stitch this in the next 24 hours or so if I have the time. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Uploaded over the top of the old one. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. The new pic has a cooler colour temperature? Colin°Talk 09:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears so, actually. I reprocessed it from scratch and I guess I didn't get the balance exactly the same as last time. Do you find it too cool? It's fairly trivial to stitch again.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you remember if it was a warm day or a cool day :-) I only noticed because I saw the thumbnail for the older version was warmer. It looks fine. Colin°Talk 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Great panorama.-- GoP T C N 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I find it to be a very good illustration of the park, its uses, and the topography (i.e. shows relative height of the hill), so plenty of EV. The article could be much improved as currently stands for (1) the land form (2) the park and (3) the district, which I find bit confusing, but that's a separate issue. -- ELEKHHT 23:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Does add value as the lead image in the article and is high resolution and detailed. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Crisco, Papa Lima Whiskey 2 and Clegs. Snapshotty. Could be anywhere. No real sense of place.  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Fascinating photo, so much detail of the park and a huge amount of London landmarks. TehGrauniad (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)