Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graveyard of Longyearbyen, Svalbard, below coal mine no.1.jpg

File:Graveyard of Longyearbyen, Svalbard, below coal mine no.1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2016 at 10:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Norway
Info created and uploaded by AWeith - nominated by W.carter
A very different view of the Arctic. -- cart-Talk 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This doesn't wow me per se, but it's different, I find it poetic in the way that it dwarfs the people and the graves, and it makes me think. And to me, all of that combined with a very good photo can be enough reason for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's seems they die by falling rocks there... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and interesting description on the file page, and I like graveyards north of the polar circle, but the composition does not work for me. I understand the point of having both the coal mine entrance and the crosses in the same picture as they are connected, but I think you are leaving too little room below the crosses and above the coal mine entrance giving a crammed feeling to the composition. As Alvesgaspar would most likely have said: Give the main subjects a little room to breathe in the frame. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Arctic graveyards we have pictures of are in Greenland. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Of course not, the nomination is also from Norway. It was just the some of the arctic graveyards I had seen myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 00:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would prefer a composition like this or this --Ivar (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I need to make a comment here. First, I’d like to thank the jury for those valuable comments, which will certainly have an influence on my attitude regarding modern photography. Secondly, and specifically regarding my photo and the two presented as comparisons, the difference in their pictorial statement is more than obvious to me. Whilst the two comparison images are of a clear documentary character (and in that case I would only accept the first one as sufficient documentary) I wanted to bring across the mood one may get in this place. Indeed Spitsbergen is one of the most remote places on earth ever populated by mankind. Especially the graveyard of Longyearbyen shows how small man and both, his religious and industrial remains are in this extreme loneliness and harsh natural habitat. That is why I chose the long focal range which makes the rocky slope around both monuments rather steep and almost hostile to the human constructs. In addition, the two people are shown as almost insignificant and hopelessly small in this environmet. And I do emphatically oppose to the statement this image would be "crammed": it's the opposite to my opinion. Putting the important items so close to the picture’s margins even increases this impression; I tried a “wide-border“ version and it did not work; the message got lost. ... And again regarding the first of the comparison pics: the weather in Longyearbyen is very rarely as sunny as shown ; -). Again thanks for your consideration. -- AWeith (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment AWeith, it echoes very much what I see in the pic (especially about the choice of composition) and why I nominated it. I deliberately did not say anything about my own thoughts in the nomination, even if I usually talk a lot, since I wanted to see if other folks saw what I saw in the pic without any influence from me, this being such an unusual nomination. cart-Talk 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, AWeith. I do find that your composition is stronger than the two proposals brought forth by Iifar for the reasons you mention. In particular I agree, the presence of two small people in a big world adds value. And thank you for trying out a composition with more space below and at the top. I have not seen the result, so cannot make up my own mind about it, but I still maintain my opinion that both the people, crosses, and the mine entrance are too close to the image frame for the composition to work - for me, that is. It obviously works for others. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing composition. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually love the composition. Most of the compositions here at FPC just have you nodding your head saying, yes, this is an excellent composition. This one, however, is quite complex, and comprises three main parts: you have the wooden structure at the top right, the rocks forming a diagonal towards the lower right, and then finally the white crosses at the bottom. I'm impressed by the scale of this whole thing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ivar -- Zcebeci (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good composition.--Karelj (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per dramatic composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reviewing the photo and the comments several times. J e e 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places