Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden Gate Bridge

Support as nominator --Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are plenty of Golden Gate Bridge pictures, and this one doesn't illustrate anything particularly important. So I think that's a no on EV. Caption says this is during morning, but the article says "On weekday mornings, traffic flows mostly southbound into the city, so four of the six lanes run southbound." Looks to me like there are three lanes going both ways. And fog is more distracting than anything. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend mornings do exist too you know :P Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Makeemlighter brings up some good points, but this is the only picture in the article that shows 1) the people on the side and 2) the traffic (which is surprising, since there's always traffic!)... so I do think it does have EV. In addition, the fog is a must for the article: I don't know when most of the sunny and clear pics of the bridge were taken, since it's pretty much always cloudy there! It's useful and important to have a different view of the bridge. Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do think it's fine to have FPs that are less artsy and more encyclopedic, but in this case, I don't really see a lot of EV in showing crowds and traffic. Decent addition to the article but not a FP. Fletcher (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any reason not be picky with such a commonly photographed and available subject. The composition and image size are both less than perfect. --Leivick (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loads of detail and info in the picture, like amount of traffic, effect of fog on sight, rail design, division of lanes. Pleasant composition. Narayanese (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Intothewoods29 thanks Astuishin (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an edit of your picture. Just some simple level twitching and the picture already looks a whole lot better. I suggest you do the same to the tif file or original RAW file to reduce compression. While your at it, also add some contrast, saturation and run a high pass filter over it. If you are unable to do so, but you do have a RAW file available, I'll be happy to do it for you. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Looks good for the most part but some of the highlights on the car windscreens now look overblown and quite distracting. Cheers for the ideas though -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Looks like a million other pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge, also it looks like it's leaning to the side by a few degrees. Not a special picture, we've all seen picture of the bridge before and this one does not have any encyclopedic value other than "it's a bridge". – Jerry^teps 10:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in terms of GGB pictures. Both technically and artistically. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]