Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Queen Elizabeth II Bridge

Queen Elizabeth II Bridge

Original - The Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, as viewed from Greenhithe, 2.5km east of the bridge in Kent. The bridge provides the most easterly crossing of the River Thames, as part of the M25 orbital motorway which encircles London.

Reason

It is a high resolution panoramic image of virtually the entire span of the half mile long bridge and the night time lighting provides an aesthetic view (it tends to be quite hazy during the day due to the significant industry in the area) in which the bridge is able to stand out.

Articles this image appears in

Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't add anything particular to the article beyond aesthetics. Considering the nominator removed this image from the bridge article, the replacement night shot shows comparatively little, I think that article is now in a poorer state in terms of using images to convey educational value to the reader. If the idea of this shot is to convey span, this image that the panorama has replaced did a passable job in my opinion without needlessly taking up the entire width of the article. I think the width also induces an uneccessary break of flow in the dartford article, and is of questionable value there, considering the view of the bridge from that far away is not synonymous with Dartford at all. This is Wikipedia not Commons, where featured images are intended to significantly inform the reader about the subject, which this just doesn't. Having said that, it is a visually nice image. MickMacNee (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you're a bit confused. I never removed this image, and it is still in the article now. I removed this image, which is a poorer quality view from practically exactly the same angle as the panorama and therefore a bit redundant in the article. And I completely disagree that it doesn't add anything particular to the article. None of the other images show the entire length of the bridge from Kent to Essex. If that doesn't make it a useful image, I don't know what does. And I also disagree that the view from Greenhithe makes it unsuitable for existing in the Dartford article, as the bridge itself is in Dartford on the southern side, and is therefore relevant to Dartford and nothing says the bridge has to be taken from Dartford. The image that I replaced in the Dartford article was also taken from Greenhithe (a different location) anyway. The only point that I can appreciate the merits of is one of aesthetics in the article, although I personally disagree that it significantly breaks the flow of the article. I think quality encyclopaedic panoramas add visual flair to an article, but I know that a number of others disagree and I am obviously biased towards them, so it isn't a black & white issue really. But please reconsider its validity on the basis of adding to the article, as I think a full view of the bridge is about as encyclopaedic as you can expect of a bridge photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Hmmm, don't know what happened with that image. In light of that, I have no particualr objection then, although I still question the value to the article you put on displaying the entire span at night. It doesn't particularly impart anything, other than it's a long bridge. That's pretty much a given from other smaller images (and in the long bridge stakes, this bridge is nothing really). MickMacNee (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I still disagree that it doesn't impart anything. If I tell you the bridge is 800 metres long, the distance may not register, but showing the full width of the bridge gives you a better sense of scale. If I tell you it is a Cable-stayed bridge, that may not mean anything to you, but seeing the design of the complete bridge from end to end aids your understanding of it. A picture speaks a thousand words, but an incomplete picture speaks only 500 and leaves you to guess the other 500 IMO. You and I are likely quite familiar with the bridge, being editors of the article, but a casual reader is often learning about it for the first time, so we should not assume any prior knowledge of what the bridge is. That is why I think it is important to show the entire length of the bridge. Besides, are the surroundings of the bridge not relevant to the bridge itself? I'm also not putting particular value on the bridge at night. It could just as easily be taken during the day if it was a view that didn't show it disappearing into haze, as the previous one did. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) If your caption was clearer about what part is 800m/half a mile, you might have a point, but the entire length shown in the image is well over 1.5 miles. There are three lengths - main span, total suspended length (also partially supported beneath), and total road length including approach viaducts. Granted, this panorama includes the approach viaducts, but as it can be debated as to whether these constitute a significant part of the bridge length or not (again, in the long bridge stakes, this one is not spectacular, and the use of long approach viaducts is also not particularly unique), then I think for example the current infobox image does just as good a job, without taking up the width of the article. That images haziness and the fact that this nominated image is a night shot are both negatives in my opinion, if we're talking education merit. Essentially, the precedent this sets is that any decent night panorama shot of the 34 cable stayed bridges longer than this one can all become FPC's, which does not leave a lot of room for other subjects on the main page. If the role of the FPC is to draw people from the main page to the article, at the very least the caption needs to include the only unique thing about the bridge, that it was the longest cable stayed bridge in Europe at the time of its opening, in 1991. (and it didn't even hold that as a record for very long). MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I had a quick estimate of the distance shown in the image based on the objects visible at either corner, and Google Maps says 1.2 miles, so yes, over 800m but not quite 'well over 1.5 miles'. I would argue that the approaches are relevent to a photo of it, whether they are technically considered part of the actual bridge or not. And yes, any decent shot of a bridge, taken in such a way as to be educational, detailed and ideally aesthetically pleasing, should in theory be able to become FPs. We don't discriminate on the basis of notibility or how interesting the subject, although the standards do vary (unofficially, we can't escape individual bias, despite trying to make the criteria as objective as possible) depending on whether the type of photo is common or well represented amongst existing FPs. As such, it doesn't matter that it isn't a uniquely long bridge. And why is the fact that it was taken at night make it less educational? All the important parts of the bridge are visible, and I believe more so as a result of the lighting, which allows it to stand out more. The current infobox image is very hazy and blurry (when viewed at high res, which is important for FPs), so it would likely fail miserably if nominated here, but I'm not sure if that is what you were suggesting or not. In any case, I could probably improve greatly on the infobox photo given the right weather conditions (shame we didn't have today's weather over the weekend, or I might have attempted it). Regardless though, I still believe a panoramic image is the ideal way to show this bridge, and indeed most bridges. I guess if you want to discuss this further we should do it on our talk pages, or the article talk pages, so as to not dominate the nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I meant that in terms of imparting knowledge, a night shot from far away is just as poor as a closer but hazy one. And the distance between the two pylons is 450m, so the length of your pic is definitely over 1.5 miles by my thumb calculations. On encyclopoedic usefulness, if you actually re-examine the removed image that made way for this one, you actually lose the ability in the article to show that the cables are not a parallel harp design, but are also not a true fan design either (I never did confirm the technical name for this, commons would have it that this is a "tuftform"). I am indeed worried by the idea that any half decent picture of the full length of a bridge can be an FP, merely by virtue of being a good pic of a bridge. If you take that to its conclusion given Wikipedia's scope, we could very rapidly run out of slots for daily main page candidates. I doubt people browse Wikipedia through the FP categories. To go to the heart of the issue, the opening statement is "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Well, for the first part, I believe it is only a decent caption that would mean this imparted any particular knowledge (and as said, information has actually been lost by removing other images). I also strongly believe that having to use a horizontal scroll bar is actually a negative for good article illustration (I view on a narrower than usual screen due to a vertical taskbar, but the difference is not much), it would be better imo to crop it to allow a fixed rendition on the page. On the second point no doubt, people will probably be moved to look at the article due to the pic being on the main page, but as said, this is hardly a good criteria if it means FP can be over populated by pictures of numerous good pics of otherwise unremarakble bridges - c.f. the commons idea that there can only be so many featured sunsets. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I do fail to see how you cannot see from this image whether it is a fan or harp design or in between. Sure, it isn't possible to tell from the thumbnail, but if you wanted to know something such as that, you would view it at 100%. Yes, I agree that a a close up, hazy image imparts roughly the same information as a distant high resolution night shot in terms of actual detail. But you're completely discounting the benefit of this image showing the entire length of the bridge from Kent to Essex, including the approach, when you narrow the comparison down as you've done. I'm not sure why you're worried about having too many bridges as Picture of the day. As I mentioned, it doesn't matter if the bridge is notable or not. Have you noticed how many unnotable articles are featured on the front page as Article of the day? As long as they are written to a high encyclopaedic standard, who are we to say they're not interesting or important enough? Likewise, as long as the image is of a high encyclopaedic standard, there should be no reason not to feature it. As I said, unofficially, the more FPs of a particular type or subject, generally speaking the higher the bar is set for further nominees, which does put a practical limit on the number of bridges that would be featured. I can't say that there is a huge waiting list full of bridges though. It isn't really fair to oppose one FPC on the basis that it could potentially open a floodgate in future. It just isn't likely to happen. If you feel strongly about the width of the image on the page, you could reduce it slightly. I do think that it views okay for the vast majority of people, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support MickMacNee's arguments are a little unusual here. "Cut-off" compositions are usually not given favourable reviews. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair, whenever a new image is added to an article, it tends to polarise the article regulars who either love it or hate its presence, and tend to navigate their way to the nomination as a result. :-) It seems that his interest in this nomination stems from his involvement in the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford articles, rather than FPC, and his review doesn't necessarily correspond to our usual criteria and expectations... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Guilty, never been in a Wikipedia FPC before, but as I read the rules, this is not merely the same as a Commons one, featured images need to dovetail with and complement article content, and not merely be a nice picture. In my initial oppose I had made a mistake misreading what images had been added/removed, and if it had been the case that the image showing for example the concrete supports had been removed in favour of this panorama, that imo would have been a net negative to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes you're right, English Wiki FPC is different to the Commons one in that encyclopadic value is a significant portion of the criteria. You seem fairly rational so I don't doubt that you are able to make an objective decision on the nomination, and indeed the criteria is written to allow the uninitiated to get involved without too many teething problems, but it is still inevitable that without the participation, you won't have a full grasp of where the bar is set and what sort of images we're trying to feature. No problem though, you're still entitled to your opinion and no disrespect intended. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • A blank user page always has its downsides. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Excellent twilight panorama. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, good enc., high quality. Spencer^T♦C 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment On the monitor I'm using (not necessarily good) I find it very dark in the "thumbnail" version, which obscures the detail. Perhaps a little earlier in the day would have been better. I'll try to take a look on another monitor so I can vote one way or the other, but at the moment I agree with MickMacNee. Terri G (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • MickMacNee didn't mention that it was very dark... What part of Mick's argument do you agree with specifically? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support tending to 'Weak'. I've said before that while these twilight/night-time shots look nice, I think they compromise EV (I realise you justify the choice of time above for this one). Concerns from 'article regulars' always worry me a bit as well (which is why I'm not usually a fan of fast-tracking noms) and EV for Dartford does seem limited. Still it does seem to have value showing the whole bridge in good detail and has a certain 'wow'. --jjron (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom and convincing reasons above. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Dartford, England - Feb 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 19:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)