Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plymouth Rock

Plymouth Rock edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 11:31:36 (UTC)

Original – Plymouth Rock, inscribed with 1620, the year of the Pilgrims' landing in the Mayflower. Plymouth Rock is an important symbol in American history as the traditional site of disembarkation of the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.

Reason: Very high res and high quality photo of an important icon in American History. As far as I can find this is the easily the best photo of Plymouth Rock on the internet, and is also superior to any printed versions I have seen, including those by official bodies. Has been stable as lead image in the main article for 9 months, as well as in other articles for the same length of time.
Articles in which this image appears: Plymouth Rock
Plymouth Colony
Plymouth, Massachusetts
FP category for this image: USA History or Places/Others
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a slight caveat Really wish the coins had been removed before the photo. It somewhat mars the image. Subject is one of the sillier American landmarks, but undoubtedly notable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coins provide a valuable sense of scale, along with the footprints, etc. If you remove them, it is impossible to judge how large the rock is. They also give wry insight into the role of the rock as a tourist attraction. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with both points about the pennies, however given this is fenced off from general access I didn't want to climb the fencing to clear them (obviously given the footprints some people don't share that opinion), and also felt that they both gave a sense of scale and showed how tourists use it as a 'wishing well' type thing, so on the balance don't think they're a bad thing. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should the cigarette butt in the top left be removed? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a fair bit of debris around there as this is actually still open to the sea through a grate so a lot of stuff washes in and out, along with people being able to toss stuff in from above, so a bit of muck depicts the reality that this is open to the elements and not maintained in a pristine state. I'm not sure there is a butt, but anything there could be cloned out. --jjron (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Em, it's a stone on some sand. The image has chroma noise. It is about the dullest composition one can create. The subject hasn't been made presentable (footprints, cigarettes, coins). The lighting isn't anything special. It isn't' "eye-catching" or "among Wikipedia's best work". It is useful for the article, sure. Colin°^Talk 22:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will ask the local authorities to surround it with some laser lighting and a marching band next time, eh. This depicts the reality of the thing, the mythical Plymouth Rock is "a stone on some sand" as you would put it. For those who couldn't be bothered to look at the article the rock sits at the bottom of this structure and taking it in anything but flat lighting simply gives you streaks of sunlight in heavy shadow, so yes, in fact this is the best lighting. --jjron (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that direct sunlight produces a poor photo as you say, but a side angle gives a better sense of form and showing more of the darker base helps too. I did read the article, and compared other pictures on Commons and the net prior to commenting. I think a better picture could be taken relatively easily but ultimately, both the subject and its environment prevent a great picture. Colin°^Talk 17:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've updated my !vote to "strong oppose" for what it is worth. In my view, the FP process is valueless if a photograph has no "excellent" qualities whatsoever, other than those determined by the camera (sensor quality, focus and exposure). Colin°^Talk 21:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Regarding it being merely a "stone on some sand", this is a historically significant rock and the FP Criteria state "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be [...] just highly informative." This picture is clearly informative in showing what this rock looks like. It has been claimed that this is the best photo of the subject available anywhere so arguably it is "among Wikipedia's best work" for this rock. To me, it's mildly interesting that people like to throw coins on historical artifacts. However, the present angle and lighting give little indication of the height of the rock (I thought it was flat at first) and apart from the coins and footprints (which are hard to see in the thumbnail), there is little indication of the size of the thing. The footprints are ugly too, but I don't imagine it is possible to sweep away all the footprints. The image seems to have been digitally sharpened and I can't tell if the noise is due to chroma noise or simply due to the texture of the sand/rock. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the fact that it's an issue but we need to be at least consistent when it comes to criticizing good images because they're dull. This is a well photographed, well framed, historically relevant object but since it's dull it must be criticized because so many nominations have failed for being dull, well framed, highly encyclopedic pictures. My sarcasm aside, subtract dull and that's why I'm supporting this image. Cat-five t c ---- 06:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good image? We can consider the EV and the qualities as a photograph of a rock with 17th century graffiti. The EV is met largely because it is a picture of the article subject. It is high resolution which is an asset, but the angle of the shot is gives no clue as to the rock's form, size or its location. For example this image or this image or this side view or this side view. As for being the best such photo, I'd argue that this is superior -- showing both the rock form but also with nicely clean sand. And yes, there is little excuse for sand with footprints and cigarettes as the tide and (and probably cleaning staff too) ensure it is fresh every day, as this very similar photo shows. Indeed a Google search shows most tourists managed to capture a similar photo with cleaner sand. So I feel this is an easily taken subject that many folk have captured successfully. I don't think that standing in front of the subject with a half-decent camera is enough to make a FP. And to anyone who's heart isn't stirred by American history, it is just a stone on some sand and "eye-catching" is an FP requirement. Colin°^Talk 13:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an interesting debate—if something cannot be photographed with good lighting and perspective, does that mean we should feature the best we can get?—but there's another question here. Plymouth Rock is, as others have pointed out, essentially a myth; it exists more in nineteenth-century historical imagination than in seventeenth-century historical reality. Thus, I wonder whether the stone itself is even the best way to represent it; the ridiculously overdone neoclassical monument above it might actually be more significant. Anyway, I did go there as a kid and can confirm that it's pretty much surrounded by a giant retaining wall and never gets decent light. Chick Bowen 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral. I have to agree with the above comment that "The subject hasn't been made presentable (footprints, cigarettes, coins)." There is only a small patch of sand around the rock that could have easily been smoothed out and the debris removed in 5 or 10 minutes with a simple rake. When you're taking a picture of a small, stationary object, I don't think that is too much to ask. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well perhaps you should read all the comments if you wish to regurgitate statements that have already been explained. As I clearly pointed out above the rock is in a fenced off enclosure and the public are not permitted to enter that area. So cleaning, raking, etc is not possible, meaning that yes, in fact, it is too much to ask. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so he's wrong about the photographer cleaning it up with a rake (like everyone carries a rake on their holidays) but clearly some folk have been down there messing up the sand with their footprints and a Google Image search shows that nearly everyone manages to take pictures of this rock with clean sand. So you've been jolly unlucky. Colin°^Talk 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I've changed my vote to neutral. But I still think it should be possible to clean the area. Perhaps you could ask permission to smooth out the sand from whoever is in charge of the area. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, now I'm sympathising with Jjron wrt not reading before writing. God cleans the sand every day? Colin°^Talk 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will agree the the removal of the debris, pennies, and footprints would make the picture more aesthetically pleasing, but given the difficulty in accomplishing this due to the fence, security, ETC... I don't think a better picture without the pennies and stuff is going to come along anytime soon, so I don't feel those complaints warrant an Oppose. Dusty777 17:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I know this is American history, but the article even says "The Rock, or one traditionally identified as it....", and for all we know, this could just be a random rock someone decided to memorialize or be a symbol, which isn't impressive to me. It's more interesting as a rock that was broken in two for some mysterious reason and then cemented back together, then someone decided to carve "1620" into it. It just seems like it was treated as a toy throughout history. (And according to the article, another piece of the rock is on a pedestal elsewhere.) I don't oppose it because it makes a great addition to the top of the article. But not FP for me, sorry. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't get past the litter, sorry. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The dullness doesn't bother me but the coins do. If the coins were on the side instead of on the face of the rock I think that would still provide scale. Also, given the questions about the historical authenticity of this rock, I have difficulty supporting this for FP. --Pine^✉ 18:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify here, the above comments about historical authenticity are totally out of line. This is Plymouth Rock as identified by all official bodies, the fact that it may be more mythology than reality doesn't alter the fact that this is an image of the genuinely recognised artefact. Misreading of the article by one voter to be backed by others is rather poor form. Oppose for other reasons if you like, but questioning whether I'm making up whether or not this is the real deal I find a bit offensive TBH. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]