Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Perm-36-1.jpg

Image:Perm-36-1.jpg, not featured edit

Info created by Wulfstan - uploaded by Wulfstan - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Szczepan talk  12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral | I think the composition and quality of the image is good, but whats the practical use? Sure, the picture could be used as symbol. If i remember right from my history lessons, Gulags were working camps for (political) prisoniers during Stalinism in Russia and many thousand people died in there. So wouldn't it be more interesting to show the inner life of the camps, for example the bed rooms or working places? Manuel R. (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your memory serves your right. And as for the purpose of using this photo, I see two possible fields. One would be the article post box, so as to show contrast between this one and those nice, sterotypical, vividly red boxes. The other would be a more artistic (and thus less encyclopedic, surely, but after all this is not just about Wikipedia) depiction of the GULag. I'm no artist or poet, I admit, but what I see in this picture is a gigantic load of sorrow and gloominess coupled with very high quality - that's why I nominated it. And by the way, this particular camp (now a museum) has its own article: de:Perm-36 Gulag-Museum. Airwolf (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it doesn't show the whole Gulag, just a detail which is completely unimportant for the subject of gulags - a postbox.--Avala (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I would like to underline the fact that this photo's aim is not to show the entire camp. Just the post box on the wall. Airwolf (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This picture doesn't show many other things. I do not understand how a picture of a postbox on a wall should show the whole gulag, or a whole system of gulags in the whole USSR. It is not a panorama of this Gulag. :-) Wulfstan (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wulfstan (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going out on a limb here. Apparent encyclopedicness is very low, technical quality is adequate. It's certainly no FP for a post box article, and the symbolism of the picture requires translation. But I think it captures the essence of confinement in a very immediate and iconic way, so it would make a great picture for a Gulag portal or any other way we bracket a series of articles. As such it's very qualified for FP on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine art photography --Romwriter (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not good enough image quality, with visible posterization in the sky, lack of detail and dull colours. All of these could of course be mitigated by an exceptional artistic quality, which is not the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Avala --Umnik (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not strong enough in my view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Symbolic meaning or relevance" - have you, opponents, forgotten the guidelines? Picus viridis RSVP? 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High symbolic meaning: post box as the only way for the people behind the barbwire to communicate with the outside world (even if certainly censored). I appreciate this small detail picture.--Harke (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Total symbolism, thoughtful photo. Wpedzich (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Harke. Matma Rex (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple in form but deep in meaning. Maire (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staszek99 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Maire. -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak composition. Lycaon (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slovik (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - National voting is unelegant and unfair, and may cause considerable damage to the credibility of FPC. I would withdraw if I were the nominator... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is that supposed to mean? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, the symbolic meaning of this image does not compensate enough for the lack of quality and the composition. Chmehl (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Lycaon - composition. --Karelj (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with MichaelMaggs --Simonizer (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic aberration -- Laitche (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)-- Laitche (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I withdraw my oppose. -- Laitche (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aktron (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor composition? This is great! -- Ram-Man 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a well composed (definitely better than I could have) image, but not really outstanding. Crapload (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA visible in preview --Base64 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 17 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]