Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BP Bridge parapets

BP Bridge parapets edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 08:00:12 (UTC)

Original - The BP Pedestrian Bridge uses parapets instead of handrails.

Reason: This is a unique feature that is well documented with this photo.
Articles in which this image appears: Parapet
BP Pedestrian Bridge
FP category for this image: maybe Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: flickr user laffy4k

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I wasn't really sure what I was looking at at first, and the EV is practically nonexistent. It's just tacked on to the bottom of both articles. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Where's the bridge? Gazhiley (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination is about the parapets, not the bridge, you might be opposing too quickly. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can oppose as quickly as I like thank you... The pic has been nom'd for the article BP Pedestrian Bridge yet there is no way of knowing in this picture that this is a bridge... Parapet - ok but only ok... the other pictures in that article demonstrate Parapet's better IMO... This picture is unnecessary for the article as it is sufficiently imaged... And tbh the more I look at this picture the more it seems over-exposed to me - very washed almost, especially on the buildings behind... That better IdLoveOne? Still a very strong Oppose Gazhiley (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I could've said your original reason sounded bogus, irrelevant to the issue and like something some totally unexperienced newbie to WP:FPC would say as quickly as I wanted to, but no, unlike you I was more patient as stayed to the topic at hand, that's all. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? Are you really saying my comment was away from the topic at hand?!! If a picture is nominated as representing the BP Pedestrian Bridge then my comment of "where's the bridge" is ENTIRELY relevant to the topic at hand... And speed of opposing has nothing to do with whether you're a newbie or not - it was obvious to me within a few seconds that this was terrible EV-wise for the bridge, so I made the comment... ~~Grow up...~~ Gazhiley (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the nomination was called "BP Bridge" that would be a different story, but it's not, it's "BP bridge parapets," meaning just that. This particular aspect of the bridge is what we should focus on and whether or not it's feature-worthy for what it is. Your argument that you're opposed to this just because you can't see the whole bridge is half moot, and the fact that you're so crabby about this issue means that you're the one that needs to grow up. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm striking my last comment - I apologise I was (and still am) very ill and therefore grouchy when I wrote the above comment... I am however sticking to my stance that while this picture is being used in the bridge article, it is therefore irrelevant what the nom name is - I strong oppose as the bridge is not in shot... Gazhiley (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (supplement) NBD, I actually did agree with you and didn't really think it stood much chance, maybe if it was from a higher angle and we could see more than just a few feet of its outer shell... Maybe even SOME of the bridge.. Get healthy soon. =) --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the bridge loops back around, I think it works in parapet, but it is too small and tilted to meet the criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1280x960 is within the acceptable dimensions. I am not sure what you mean by tilted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small, bad crop, tilted.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My reasons for opposing are covered completely by the other opposes before me. -- Jack?! 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not think this can pass- suggest speedy close? J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition really not FP quality. Agree with speedy close. --Elekhh (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also agree with speedy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]