Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Parthenon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Parthenon[edit]

Original
Reason
Aesthetic composition, high technical quality. The picture is very encyclopedic because it clearly shows the columns, the metopes, and the roof tiles. Is an FP on Commons.
Proposed caption
The ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. Formerly a temple to Athena, it was built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports.
Built on the Acropolis of Athens in the 5th century B. C. E. as a temple to Athena, the Parthenon today stands in ruins. Much of the original marble that formed the roof and frieze now lies in a pile of rubble at its base. Even so, it remains ones of the most important surviving buildings of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy.
Articles this image appears in
Classical Greece and ruins. Minor contributions to Parthenon and Pericles
Creator
Thermos
  • Support as nominator Malachirality 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Not perfectly sharp. Part of the building is missing... Although including it would make for a less appealing. the sky is really nice. Overall I think it very artistic and deserves feature. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeI do not like the composition.--Mbz1 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Really great photograph, but it doesn't illustrate the Parthenon very well. Iorek 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Support Now it illustrates ruins. Iorek 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great photo. Maddie talk 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per Iorek, this photo doesn't illustrate the Parthenon well enough to be featured on Wikipedia. It is, however, of great technical and aesthetic quality, and is fully deserving of being featured on Commons. --Aqwis 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it would work better in ruins?--HereToHelp 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would voters think that it would have greater enc. value in ruins? Am I allowed to just add the picture into the article? Would it be perceived as an underhanded edit that was made just to validate an FPC? --Malachirality 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the multiple posts, but I have a question. Could the image be inserted into other articles, such as the aforementioned ruins and/or (perhaps even more appropriately) Classical Greece, where the enc. emphasis is on the style, individual architectural elements, and the feelings evoked by the place, rather than on the Parthenon itself? Consensus says (and I agree) that this picture is not very enc. regarding the latter, but IMO it is very enc. regarding the former. I think this picture is one of en.wiki's more distinctive pictures and definitely has the ability to draw readers into an article, and I would like to see it featured. That being said, I don't want to do anything that comes across as inappropriate or manipulative. Thanks. --Malachirality 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think too much of the subject is cut off for Parthenon. I suggested ruins (Classical Greece is another great idea) because I got a sense of what a mighty structure is was compared to what it is. I like the juxtaposition of still-smooth surfaces with the pile of fallen rubble. I can see that the Greeks cared about their architecture but also that the building has seen a lot of wear-and-tear. This is the image's strong point; putting it in a better article is not manipulative, it improves the encyclopedia.--HereToHelp 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The composition is beautiful, but the image is put together at the expense of the subject. It's missing a significant portion of the building and has no more detail than the more comprehensive images on the page. In my eyes, this combination torches the enc value because there's nothing to be learned about the subject from the photo. SingCal 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support Pending a reworking of the caption. The image is much more encyclopedic now, but adding the word "ruins" to the caption just doesn't cut it for me. I will change to a full support once the caption is at least slightly reconsidered. SingCal 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not sufficiently illustrative of its subject. Pstuart84 Talk 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral. I still don't like the abrut cutting off of the Parthenon, but since it's now being suggested for Ruins I'll abstain. Pstuart84 Talk 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added the picture to the articles ruins (replacing this painting) and Classical Greece (replacing a picture of the Parthenon--a fully enc. Parthenon pic occurs later in the article). Please take a look and assess the picture's stylistic and enc. contributions to those pages.
    • I agree with these changes - that pic has great power to open an article, as it is very eye-catching - made me want to read more about ruins and Classical Greece when I opened those articles. --84.90.46.116 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For a very artistic picture, not enough of the subject included in the image. KyuuA4 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would plead with people to reconsider this one. I fully admit I'm swayed by the fabulous lighting and arty perspective and supported this last time based on little more than that (tut-tut..) but now that it's in the Ruins article I think it's found a very enc niche. There are no longer grounds for opposing on the basis of not seeing all of the structure, as the intriguing rubble is now a major part of its value. It may look a little posterised at 100% but this completely disappears in print. It's very sharp, has fantastic depth of field and inspired me to copyedit, never mind read, the article. Support! --mikaultalk 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I find that now the image has found a proper home at Ruins, it's encyclopedic value skyrocketed - and seeing as it is a very impressive photo (it has that WOW factor many photos fail at and the technical prowess) I figured it was the perfect photo to actually cast a vote for the first time. Cheers. (As mikaul above me said, I encourage people who opposed based on encyclopedic grounds to reconsider seeing the now fulfilled niche) --84.90.46.116 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi 84.90.46.116. I notice you've now made quite a few comments, etc, on this page, and as you say above, have now casted a vote. Please be aware, and I quote from the top of the page, "...anonymous votes are generally disregarded". Can I encourage you to register an account (it's easy and free) and contribute using that so that we can get some feeling for who we're dealing with, and so that you can participate fully. Cheers, --jjron 08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is just a lovely photograph. I initially had reservations about its encyclopedicity, but I think it's a great addition to Ruins, so that concern has been addressed. -- Coneslayer 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- definitely a great picture for Ruins. -- Merope 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to support as the picture works well in the article Ruins. --Aqwis 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent photo, nice light. Good enc in Ruins. Could be improved with slight cw rotation. --Janke | Talk 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Composition no encyclopaedic, but would do well on Commons. (Detailed reasons: subject cut off, too much space devoted to loose stones and sky) NB proposed caption references parthenon, not ruins. Separa 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The composition is encyclopaedic for ruins - works much better then just any front shot - and to adress your other concern, I propose we change the caption to "The Ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. The Parthenon is a temple to Athena built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports." Cheers. --Mad Tinman 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support A very attractive shot no doubt, and the sky is lovely. But the mere fact that the main subject has been chopped in half isn't particularly useful, especially when it's the first thing your eyes see. Hence only a weak support. -- Chris B • talk 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I went back and forth on this one-- it is such a stunning work of photography, but not encyclopedic for "Parthenon". But now that it has been submitted for "Ruins", it works for me. Compare the discussion of this FPC nomination, once it was submitted as encyclopedic for "Camouflage" rather than for "War in Afghanistan", it was recognized as encyclopedic. Spikebrennan 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use in ruins. Matt Deres 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I want to see more of the subject. 8thstar 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a lovely photo, but falls down on encyclopaedic grounds for me. Too cut off for the "Parthenon", and while the case has been made above for "Ruins", to me the so-called 'pile of rubble' at its base that dominates the foreground is all too neatly stacked to convince me. --jjron 08:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Parthenon from south.jpg MER-C 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Parthenon&oldid=1146660424"