Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World's Tallest Totem Pole, Victoria, British Columbia

World's Second Tallest Totem Pole, Victoria, British Columbia


The world's tallest totem pole was raised in Kake Alaska in 1971 and stands 132 ft. tall. http://www.alaska.org/detail/kake-totem-pole

This picture of the second tallest pole, is not only composed well, but is technically excellent. It has very little noise, a good depth of focus, great lighting and color, and is very high resolution.

The image appears in the articles Totem Pole and Beacon Hill Park. I would go with the Totem Pole article personally.

The pole was carved by Mungo Martin, David Martin, and Henry Hunt. Dedicated 2 July, 1954.

The image was created by Fawcett5, 24 August, 2005 and has been released into the public domain.


 * Nominate and support. - HighInBC 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Blown highlights. It would be more encyclopedic to show the whole pole from farther away. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have seen this pole in person, and the white areas are extremely bright and without detail in reality. But yes, it is overblown in places. HighInBC 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The color and detail are great; it's a beautiful picture. A shot from farther away would show no detail; the pole would look like a very tall line. And frankly, I find all the worry about highlights to be overblown in places. -- Robert Southworth 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pharaoh Hound. —Keenan Pepper 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose per Pharaoh Hound; i don't like the angle--Vircabutar 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the issue with the highlights and the fact that angle makes it tough to see. Pegasus1138 Talk 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with other Opposes. Angle makes it difficult to see greater detail. -- AJ24 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Robert. Angle adds to encyclopedic value because it shows the totem's height. You wouldn't be able to see any color or detail clearly if it was taken from a distance. - Mgm|(talk) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Robert. Yeah, it's not the best angle but I don't know what other angle you could use on such a tall structure and still get this amount of detail. --Nebular110
 * Support per Robert. It's the next best thing to being beside it.--Bagginz 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Dislike the angle. --Fir0002 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)