Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vatican Museum Staircase

Vatican Museum Staicase
Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 03:25:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very intersting picture. It looks like an optical issusion to me. It was featured on Turkish wikipedia and on Commons
 * Articles in which this image appears:Vatican Museums, Stairway (in a gallery)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
 * Creator:Tillea

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Re-opened Un-withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The way you've presented it, it has no EV. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Image is very noisy and there is very little detail and definition in the picture at all. Not FP standard in my opinion. JFitch   (talk)  11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw i would like to withdraw it. It looked better when i looked at it but actually looking more at it, it isnt that good. Spongie555 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Darn! What a neat picture. I came way too late to this one. Greg L (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that now a support Greg? This Nom needs one at least... gaz hiley .co.uk  07:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Interesting, but the EV isn't wild and the quality's fairly low. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Reluctant Oppose Upon reading the others’ objections, I have to agree. I’m sorry for my earlier comment, which wasn’t thought through. I think this image has outstanding artistic and aesthetic appeal. It is just beautiful. However, there is no article on “Vatican Museum staircase,” so per some others here, this image has low encyclopedic value (EV) for the article “Vatican Museums”. I am glad to see that it is being used in the article. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment / question Let me see if we can explore the tradeoff between “EV” and the fundamental objective of casting Wikipedia in a fine light and educating readers about a new subject by inducing them to click a link because of a captivating, beautiful, or unusual picture. Without a doubt, this image does not do a great job illustrating the subject “Vatican Museums.” But I posit, nonetheless, that this image, were it Today’s Featured Picture on the Main Page, would make readers stop, stare & click on the article (and/or the picture) because of its great beauty. I even think the caption here is especially encyclopedic. Do others see it that way? Greg L (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent, but we're simply not here to judge beauty, we're here to judge value. The image barely has a place in the article- in many ways, I think people could be disappointed if they click to read the article. We shouldn't be promoting stuff based on the fact it's pretty, that would be more Commons's domain. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. *Disappointment when they arrive at the article* is an aspect I didn’t think of. I’ll noodle on that principle as it applies to this situation some more. Greg L (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you’re right; it is too tangential and therefore following the link to the article would be misleading and likely to disappoint if it was the staircase that induced them to click on the article. So, Oppose. However, I would argue that Wolf Point, Chicago at night would not be misleading in this vein. It shows the subject matter, and readers would land on an article squarely about the subject upon which they clicked, it is clearly an eye-catching picture, and it is stunningly beautiful. I think in every way, it would cast Wikipedia in a very fine light were in on the Main Page for a day. I think all time exposure photographs, or fast-motion photographs, or slow-motion videos, or x-ray images retain EV even though they capture something the eye can’t directly see.  Greg L (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an exceedingly poorly composed image of a well composed subject. Cowtowner (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)