Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stave Hill, Rotherhithe, London - May 2008

Stave Hill, Rotherhithe, London - May 2008

 * Reason:A high quality panorama of Stave Hill in Rotherhithe, London, good encyclopedic value, not to mention great quality Image, taken by Diliff.
 * Articles this image appears in:Stave Hill
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Mifter (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, the technical quality is good, but I'm not sure its one of my most awe-inspiring photos. ;-) Certainly not one I would have voluntarily nominated, but thanks for the nod anyway Mifter! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant, weak oppose The quality is really high, but it's boring... no wow at all. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to what's been said about "wow", it's also low on EV. The article is a two-sentence stub without inline references. In addition, the "ecological park" doesn't seem to be fully illustrated by this picture, as I'd imagine there would be parts that aren't mown grass. I'm sure the viewing platform seemed a nice idea at the time, but we don't get a sense of whether it's popular. Looks pretty lonely (and yes, I know that having too many random strangers in a photo is one of the standard complaints here, but this particular composition is just *too* plain and might have benefited from some jolly crowds). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Hey, it's probably the best picture ever taken of Stave Hill. Why not? Nautica Shad es  23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a good picture technically but as previously stated; not very impressive nor much encyclopedic value. --Krm500 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I quite like the composition. It's simple but elegant. Is it possible to get a taller view to give more perspective? --victorrocha (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, the ground slopes away in all directions. This was about the only decent place to take the shot from. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess climbing a tree is not an option. :D --victorrocha (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for a photo of this, it isn't.. The ends would not justify the means! Anyway, there are no trees where I took the shot from (the path connects to a road), and even if I did manage to climb those flimsy trees on the left and right sides, the symmetry would be lost. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So does this imply that you have climbed trees to get better perspective? ;) Farthest I have gone is climbing an external fire escape for a picture. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per Krm500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Something of a moral support. It's probably the best picture that could possibly be taken of this subject, but I agree the subject is fairly average-looking. I like the lightposts, though, and it's certainly encyclopaedic for the article it's in. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Maybe subject has little WOW, but the quality has a LOT! --Arad (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support I really like the symmetry of the photograph and the perfect shape of the hill, but I'm not so sure about its encyclopedic value. A. Parrot (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)