Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian truss bridge

Russian truss bridge edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 21:10:15 (UTC)

Original - Metal truss railroad bridge over Kama River, near Perm.

Reason: Great picture with much EV showing a metal truss railroad bridge built by Lavr Proskuryakov near Perm over the Kama river. The photo was taken ca. 1912 by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky. This bridge is also part of the longest railway, the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Articles in which this image appears: Trans-Siberian Railway, Perm, Kama River, Eurasian Land Bridge
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, uploaded by Eloquence

Support as nominator -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I saw this photo when looking into the photographer. The photo is amazing quality for 1912. I would support it even if it was taken in the present time! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I agree with AmericanXplorer13 and am interested in how they got the quality and color right in 1912. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way they got the color right was similar to this, by taking 3 photos using different filters and then combining them. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ although the photo is certainly very impressive for its time, modern photographs should far surpass the quality. Since I presume the bridge has not changed much since the time that photo was taken, a better photograph should be possible. Notice that since three exposures were taken to achieve this color photo, areas with motion (especially the reflection in the water) tend to get strange color shadows, an unavoidable artifact of the technique used. Furthermore, the resolution of the image isn't particularly strong either (although, as I said, very good for 1912). Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to our article Perm, it is now painted white. I'd support this, particularly if that fact were noted more prominently in one of these articles. Chick Bowen 03:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Further note: from what I could find by googling, I think this is the bridge (taken from on it, so the perspective is obviously very different), showing it is indeed white. Chick Bowen 03:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, that's a shame, I think it looks nicer in green! I guess I'll neutral for now, since I'm still slightly irked by the colour artifacts in the water reflections...Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm with PP. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was taken in 1912!? Amazing! Neutrality^talk 07:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn fine for a 100 year old photo that can not be recreated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are leading an article on an active railway with a very old picture of a bridge that now looks completely different, and everyone's sitting here saying it should be a featured picture? Am I missing something here? J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it should be the lead image, but I don't think it detracts from its value if it isn't. If something is 100 years old, then it should be illustrated at various points in its history. Chick Bowen 05:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, if possible, but remember the article is on a long stretch of railway, not on this bridge in particular. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's important to have historic images of such structures. Should it be a lead image? Perhaps not. But as a historic image I welcome it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ev concerns. It is in a gallery in Perm and Kama River. In Trans-Siberian Railway and Eurasian Land Bridge, it is the lead image, but I strongly disagree with that placement. For the railway article, there should be a map that is first, not just a bridge on which you can't even see rails or a train. For the Eurasian Land Bridge, this is an even worse lead image, as the article is about 2 rail systems crossing Eurasia, and maps, not an image of a single bridge, should be in the lead. Spencer^T♦C 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spencer; an article on the bridge would be necessary for this to have the EV needed to pass FPC. upstate NYer 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely disagree, since the bridge hasn't got any name. We are talking about the image and not the articles.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)7[reply]
  - I'm not sure if your analysis of image vs. article is correct. See point 5 on Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Although we're talking about the image, we must consider the image's placement and value to the articles. Spencer^T♦C 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know all points and I think this pic is not only with great quality, but also with much EV.

there should be a map that is first, not just a bridge on which you can't even see rails or a train.

There is a map in the infobox, but that's not my fault, that the first image is this bridge and the second a map. Why should there be rails/trains on it? Is it really necessary?

For the Eurasian Land Bridge, this is an even worse lead image, as the article is about 2 rail systems crossing Eurasia, and maps, not an image of a single bridge, should be in the lead.

I think this bridge fits to the lead, since there is no current map available. It is a GA, so anything seems fine. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per EV concerns, mostly. I'm not convinced that the fact this image is old is adding much. This is also pretty unimpressive as far as images from this collection go - uninteresting, bad composition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean with "uninteresting", "unimpressive"; what "collection" do you mean? Bridges? It's actually the best composition for this bridge. What composition you would have like to see? What should be done to be more "interesting" and more "impressive"?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean the collection of all the images by this photographer. We have hundreds of these super-old color photos. This is not a particularly good example. As for composition, a shot from the water on a boat would probably better be a better way of showing what the bridge looks like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a good example not for this man, but for the articles Trans-Siberian Railway, Perm, Kama River, Eurasian Land Bridge, as said above! Maybe it was shot on a boat? Who knows? And if not, the bridge's steel girder wouldn't be seen or only partially. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that I don't agree that it's adding much to those articles either. It's badly composed, and the fact that it is old is not really helpful either. Compare this existing FP for an idea of what a good photo of a bridge looks like. If this photo were taken today, it wouldn't stand a chance. And since this bridge hasn't changed much (besides being repainted) there is no reason to use an old photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it has few EV?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]