Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial[edit]

File:Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial.jpg
Apparently the statue was orignally titled "war president". From commons
Current FP of the statue.

Nominating this image for promotion and the current FP of this statue (which I feel is vastly inferior) for demotion. I would've put the other of nominations for removal but I though it best to keep them together. I plan to use it on Lincoln Memorial when it the other image is demoted. ed g2s • talk 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Nominate, support promotion, support demotion. ed g2s • talk 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • To clarify, the current FP is grainy, flat and boring. As a photo it has nothing to it other than its subject matter, which although very encyclopaedic, doesn't meet featured picture standards. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion - I like the original better. Dunc|☺ 21:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, support demotion. The replacement looks like it has been worked too hard to make it look like art. I like the original a bit better which just shows Lincoln as it is, but do agree that it is not brilliant either. Janderk 00:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. Current F.P. is better. Current FP is grainy, yes, but a much better angle of view. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify your votes by using support/oppose promotion, support/oppose demotion as this is a double vote.. ed g2s • talk 17:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, support demotion. Original is boring, the new one is not perfect but still a great image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, oppose demotion; no reason not to have two, and the current one isn't bad, even if it is a little boring. James F. (talk) 19:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "not bad" and "a little boring" aren't the descriptions you'd expect of a featured picture... ed g2s • talk 03:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, oppose demotion. [I agree with] James F. ... They're different images that say different things about the same subject. - RedWordSmith 00:25, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. People, do we really need two Featured pictures of the exact same statue? Please look at this from an international viewpoint as well, is it really so interesting as to require TWO featured pictures. I think we should regards these two pictures as different versions of the same image, and select only one of them. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see any conflict between having two pictures of this subject and our international scope. Would we say no to two featured pictures of the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower? I hope not. - RedWordSmith 22:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, support demotion. I agree, ... Both pictures are nice but only the new one is FP quality. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. - The current FP is a neutral picture: centered, distant view, evenly lit; while the new one is designed to be more emotional: off center, very dark background, very bright middleground, view looking up from his feet. A nice picture, but one that is framed and lit to invoke a sense of reverence. --Elijah 22:43, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
    • i.e. it captures the intentions of the statue. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If that is the intention of the statue, then it should speak (metaphorically) for itself, and not require subjective photography. --Elijah 00:44, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • support promotion, oppose demotion. The demotion part has gotten a little out of hand while we seem to have pretty good consensus for support. I propose we finish the process of nominating this one on its own merits, and then do a VFD for the old one at the bottom of this page, independent of this process, where we can evaluate the picture and context more thoroughly. Matthewcieplak 01:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. Oppose this nomination at this time because we already have a featured picture of that subject from roughly the same viewpoint. And, of course this is not the way to delist any standing featured picture. Use the process first of delisting the current image, and then nominate the new image (you can use the new image's existance in the rationale to delist the standing featured image). - Bevo 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, support demotion. While not as impressive as a thumb, the full-size "war president" photo makes Lincoln jump off the screen -- his hands and eyes seem caught in the middle of a gesture. The current FP is serviceable, but hardly comparable in my eyes. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, support demotion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, neutral demotion. Support promotion of "war president" beautiful contrast and focuse. Magnificent sculpture.--Fir0002 04:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I agree with Elijah - the old one is balanced and neutral, whereas the new one is taken from a angle that makes it nigh-impossible to know what you are looking at; the intentionally high contrast washes out the color of the marble. Basically, most of the informative use has been lost in order to make this more picture more chique. →Raul654 09:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. agree with Raul654. Enochlau 21:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly the first is more plain and neutral, but is it "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating"? I can understand if you think the new one is too emotive (although this never seemed to be a problem when promoting "cute" pictures of fluffy little animals :)), but the old one is just boring. ed g2s • talk 04:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I've thrown a wrench into the works by uploading an enhanced/brightened version of Raul's photograph. The other one is a little too stark and lifeless; I prefer the subtle coloration in the original. -- Wapcaplet 05:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Your version has blurred it a bit, and overexposed some areas. I don't the original has enough infromation to make a decent image out if it. Not enough light. ed g2s • talk 02:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, neutral demotion. --MarkSweep 08:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support promotion, support demotion. User:Wapcaplet's increased contrast version of Raul654's photo definately helps and in many ways it is the more acurate depiction. The new image from vxdigital is perhaps a little overly dramatic, but it works quite well. I particularly like the subtle inclusion of the text on the back wall. There is a minor technical problem in that it isn't actually used on any article, but I guess the intention is to replace the image on Lincoln Memorial whilst leaving the original photo on Abraham Lincoln. -- Solipsist 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I too think this one tries too hard to look like art -Lommer | talk 09:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Summary- This is confusing. To sort out the voting, I'm now going to refactor each comment to clearly show support/oppose promotion of the first image, then support/oppose demotion of the previous image. If I have got your vote wrong, please let me know (especially as there were a couple I wasn't even sure were votes). -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • New picture, Not promoted   +11 / -9
    • Previous picture, Not demoted   +7 / -11 / 2 neutral
    •  -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lincoln_statue_in_the_Lincoln_memorial&oldid=1136456238"