Talk:Abingdon Lock

In response to Motmit (23.6.2009) I would question the logic of replacing a photo of Abingdon Lock (and Lock Keepers house) in action with a photo of his/her own showing an expanse of tarmac devoid of people or activity. I appreciate there may be some issues with inexperience of formatting (I've still got little idea about how to code a page!), but it is clear from the editing history that Motmit chose to replace the existing 'lead' photo with three of their own, simply dumping the previously existing photo at the bottom. It was not a very positive action. I understand Wikepedia to be a collaborative project therefore (not wanting to engage in a long photographic critique) I've now placed the photo of the 'lock in action' within the body of the text. SeanKizz (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a picture of a boat in a lock with a lock-keeper's cottage behind is one that could be used to illustrate nearly every one of the 45 locks on the Thames, and no one would be any the wiser. The challenge is to illustrate the wider setting of the lock in a way that makes it distinctive; and also to bring in additional information. The lead pic gives the setting with Abingdon church spire in the distance and the fields of Andersey Island to the side. It shows the lock house to the left, has the lock name clearly displayed, and is surrounded with flowers as well as tarmac. The silver parasols add interest and perspective and the yellow boards explain why it is quiet, and this is an unusual situation in mid summer. The article has been considerably developed since SeanKizz added his photo and is therefore large enough to support four images. Two other pictures support the relevant sections. It is not a matter of "dumping" at the bottom - it is a matter of arranging the pictures to make a pleasingly structured and informative article. SeanKizz's pic makes a nice conclusion and is actually enhanced by having the setting explained above. Motmit (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicely wriggled out of. But it sounds like a rational explanation and I'm glad we had this chat. The article has improved massively over the last 18 months! SeanKizz (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)