Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Two Coracles and Tungabhadra River.jpg

Two Coracles at, in Tungabhadra River

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 03:24:14 (UTC)

Original – Couple of coracles (round-shaped boats) at Tungabhadra river near Hampi, India. Coracles are used as mode of water transportation in this part of the world.

Reason

High Resolution and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Tungabhadra River, Coracle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Dey.sandip

• Support as nominator – National Names 2000 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Very clear. That's an interesting rock formation in the background. The overall shape of the formation, or at least of some of the large individual boulders, is similar to the shape of the upturned coracle. CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose No EV (in my opionion). There is no mention of "Coracles" in the article linked, and therefore there is no way of knowing what "The Two Coracles" are when reading the article. The description in the nom is clear, but when you view the article it isn't. The way the picture is labeled in the article almost looks like it is the name of the rock formation, as the boats themselves take up such a small part of the picture. In addition this picture is a poor representation of the river as it is too low to indicate anything other than it is a patch of water next to some rocks. While this is a nice picture, the EV is non-existant. I would go as far as to say it would either need to be removed from the article and used in the Coracle article instead (although there are already plenty of images there), or captioned better to indicate why it is in the Tungabhadra River article. gazhiley 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note The photo also appears in Coracle, which should have been listed as the main article during the nomination. I have added the link above. LK (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• It wasn't at the time of my comment - It was added about 2 hours before your comment according to the edit history. Should this Nom be suspended to allow time for the picture to become stable? I've seen that happen before when a picture is added to an article mid-nomination, although not sure of the process in that respect... The rest of my objection still stands however regarding the primary focus of either the river or the boats not being the case due to the overbearing presence of the Rocks behind the stretch of water... gazhiley 18:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Sure we can suspend it if you want that... --Hafspajen (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Interesting boats. It did made me read about them, never knew there are such boats. Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to gazhiley's comment regarding a lack of primary focus -- coracles or pile of rocks -- I originally thought that, too, but when I looked at the other images in the article Tungabhadra River, I saw that there were piles of rocks all along the banks of that river, rather unusual boulders they are, too. So it would be hard to get a photo that didn't have them in the background. The one coracle that is upside down is not so clear, but the other one is quite clear. I had never heard of a coracle before and was glad to learn something new. I think the photo is a pretty good illustration of the type of boat. I also think the clear reflection of the rocks in the water and the light are quite beautiful. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, it's a nice picture, and would probably look lovely in a frame. But here we look for more than that - for this to be a high EV picture it needs to be JUST about the boats - they are such a small part of the picture, and almost missable unless you know in advance the name of the boats. Anyone who wasn't aware that Coracles are boats will see the title of "The Two Coracles" and then look at the picture and be none the wiser to what Coracles are without looking at the article... Therefore the EV is not sufficient in my opinion... Regarding my request to suspend Hafspajen I have never done it before so not sure what the process or requirements are - I've just seem noms suspended before when the picture is added to an article mid-nom... gazhiley 10:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Hafspajen (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to add something. I hear you, User:gazhiley, but these are not your usual boats. If they were photographed in isolation, away from water, or without some distance, one might have difficulty even seeing them as boats. Here, floating on calm water, one can see clearly that they are boats, and approximately how big they are, that is, not very big. CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough... If I'm honest though I thought they were large sifting pans like those used for searching for gold... It's only when I searched for a Coracle (the article wasn't linked at the time) I found out what I was looking at... The cross hatching pattern specifically made me think large seive - no scale to be able to see exactly the size of them... Not sure what they'd be sifting for though, with holes that large! gazhiley 11:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I do agree that this is an image that's trying to do too many things at once, without doing any of them particularly well. The focus on a somewhat insignificant rocky hill is unfortunate, and the fact that this is a recurring geological feature characteristic of the river only becomes apparent after looking at other pictures, which doesn't strongly suggest that this one alone has exceptional EV. For the coracle article, one would ultimately like to have an image that shows the coracle in detail or at least in use. This image again provides neither of those two things. However, since we probably don't get a lot of quality content from that part of the world yet, I'm willing to weakly support this nomination. Samsara 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's true -- there's nothing in the image to indicate scale, such as a person. I don't know if that is enough to disqualify it or not. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I still like it, though. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support _{High quality and EV} __ Alborzagros (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Promoted File:Two Coracles and Tungabhadra River.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)