Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg

Reason

Given the recent nomination of the subway station in NYC, and the fact that most of the opposition votes were mainly on the basis of limited identifiability and poor image quality (purple fringing), I thought I would give this image a nomination as I think it has a more interesting composition and addresses some of the faults of the other.

Articles this image appears in

Clapham Common tube station, City and South London Railway, Island platform and Rapid transit

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I support this becoming a featured picture. Harlem675 10:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfascinating. Motion blur on person on left side is very distracting. No encyclopedic value. -- mcshadypl ^TC 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you sincerely for your expert opinion! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why you feel this has no EV? I think this has a great deal of it, especially in Rapid transit, since it shows the trains, the platform, and the passengers. And as an example of an Island platform, this has good EV in that article as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose due to the stairwell people. Shot might have been better (imho) waiting a few seconds for them to vacate. Sasata (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Better EV than the other image and quality is also better. Is it ok to have the photographer's name in the image caption in the article? --Muhammad(talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless say the photo is being used to illustrate the photographer's work. Where's that? --jjron (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was in Rapid transit, added by a user who felt he was correctly using the license by attributing. Has been removed by another user now. --Muhammad(talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is the blue light above the left black-and-orange electronic sign? (About coordinates 900,180, according to GIMP.) Can it be removed?
  talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't know exactly what it is. Could be a light from the driver's cabin projecting onto the wall, or something like that perhaps. I don't think it should be removed though. It's hardly that distracting and I don't like the idea of removing things from a scene, anyway. It's a falsification of reality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you: if it might have been part of the original scene, then best leave it in. I just thought that it might have arisen from some sort of technical fault, in which case removing it might not be unethical.
      talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support. Of a very high standard given the conditions. Good EV and the balanced composition (including the blurred people) is pleasing. It's a bit noisy in parts but not distractingly so; noise isn't necessarily undesirable.
  talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: EV is high, in my opinion, particularly for Clapham Common and Island platform articles. One of the only modern images for the City & South London Railway article. EV seems a little weaker for rapid transit, but it's still better by degrees than any of the other images in the article and is a more complete view. I actually think the motion blur adds to the "scene"; this is what you get in stations, people standing around and rushing around, especially as the trains come in. (P.S. I love the British, "Mind the gap". They would say it like that!)
  talk 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Support per my comments on EV above. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a Yankee such as me this has a lot of EV, we obviously don't build our subways in the same manner, so this is an illuminating look at how someone else does it. It also adds to the articles in which its placed, rapid transit in particular. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]