Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Casselman River Bridge

Casselman River Bridge[edit]

Reason: This image is a very high-resolution version of an image taken in 1933 of the Casselman River Bridge, which carried the National Road over the Casselman River in Grantsville, Maryland.
Articles this image appears in: U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland)
Creator: Historic American Buildings Survey (cropped by Algorerhythms)

Support as nominator --Algorerhythms (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually the historic images of bridges and architecture that get featured are either truly exceptional for their era or have unique qualities that cannot be replicated. For instance, this bridge no longer exists and this lighthouse was dismantled and replaced with a different structure in a different location. I checked Google Images; the Casselman River Bridge and surrounding vista is basically unchanged since 1933.[1] Durova^Charge! 08:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a fold present in the lower left corner. Further more, that same corner looks rather weird. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped the image on the left side to remove the fold and the weird corner. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really like this composition, and wouldn't have a problem featuring the black and white despite that the bridge is unchanged today. (Since it's notable in part as a National Historic Place, the older picture has some additional encyclopedic merit.) But I would rather see the problem corner restored, not cropped off along with a whole strip good image.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but I'm not actually sure how to do that. - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose edit 1 I'm a bit of a sucker for old photos, but this doesn't seem to show anything that isn't basically the same today (at least according to the pics in the external links section of the article), so I don't see a lot of historic value to the image itself - a hi-res picture taken today would serve just as well and be in colour. Note: I'd be happy to change my vote if there is indeed some significant historical value. Decent EV, but a different angle (such as the modern shot here) provides more info about the actual shape of the bridge. Matt Deres (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]