Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Three countries bridge

Three countries bridge (redux)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 14:48:54 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality, beautiful picture. High EV with an article on the bridge. Last time it failed because it was missing half a vote.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Three Countries Bridge, Huningue, Dietmar Feichtinger
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Taxiarchos228


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Simple composition and low wow factor, but nice aesthetics and it shows enough of the bridge to have good EV. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very impressive. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since last time it was I who withheld the half vote in question, and now feel rather bad about that because this is a very good picture, I am happy to support. Chick Bowen 18:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice -- George Chernilevsky  talk 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support IMO, the left end of the bridge is not necessary to make this an FP. Beautiful, good EV for it's article. Preceding vote added by Clegs with this edit at 13:28 UTC, 2 December 2011
 * Support - jes' pilin' on. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support very nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per myself last time (the LHS of the bridge is cut off) JJ Harrison (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cut off left side, tight crop on right and unfortunate overlap with high-rise. --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per David. Richard Bartz (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'd support on Commons because of its quality and attractiveness. But here, with the left of the bridge cut off and the right crop so tight, it's just too poorly composed to have the EV I'd expect for this sort of subject.  Julia\talk  19:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The request that bridge picture have always to show both watersides is flim-flam. The EV does not depend on this point. Even Diliffs Tower Bridge File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg does not show this and we have a perfect view of the architectural structure. Maybe Julia can profess why this picture should have less EV because of it's composition. Moreover: there is no picture that can bring out all structural aspects of a complex building. You will always have a compromise between complaisant picture and documentary value. --194.209.146.84 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that both sides must always be shown, because I don't believe it's always necessary. In this instance, it is more the tight right crop, in combination with the missing left.  Julia\talk  18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

11S, 4O --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A very nice photo; I think the "unfortunate overlap with high-rise" actually looks pretty neat.  City O f Silver  18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly that "neat"ness makes it messy IMO. Would have been so much better detached, to emphasise the shape of the bridge. --Elekhh (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support compelling illustration of the subject, though the highlights are a bit bright. Pinetalk 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose My major complaint is with the horrid composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)