Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cenotaph Hiroshima

Cenotaph Hiroshima edit

 
The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with an ambiguous sentence: "Rest in peace, for this mistake will not be repeated." This construction, natural in the Japanese language, was intended to memorialize the victims of Hiroshima without politicizing the issue.

In my opinion, this is an important picture for an encyclopedia. It is showing the Cenotaph in Hiroshima, Japan built in memory of the victims of the nuclear bombing. It is also showing another memorial, the A-Bomb dome. This picture was taken by me (Michael Oswald) and is used by the following articles: Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Cenotaph.

  • Self-Nominate and support. - Mikeo 12:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I believe support votes don't count for self-nominations. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It's certainly encyclopaedic, but there's something about the composition that I find unsatisfactory. There are some horizontal concrete structures in the water; a bridge with people and a car on; a tall apartment block next to the Peace Memorial; and another building with a green roof on the right. It may be unavoidable, but it's all rather distracting. Sorry. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The concrete structures you mentioned are a part of the monument - eternal flame. The other things are minor (cars, people) or simply unavoidable. The line of sight is somewhat defined by the monument. Mikeo 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not stunning. Agree with Turner on unsatisfactory composition. -- P199 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel too "close" in this shot... I feel as if I'm missing something by not seeing more of the surroundings. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not at all noteworthy as a piece of architecture, and no special distinction as a photograph. The topic has undeniable encyclipedic interest, but imho that alone cannot qualify the photograph. --Philopedia 14:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]