Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roger Puta 8 Canadian National Freights in Alberta

Roger Puta 8 Canadian National Freights in Alberta[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 02:24:14 (UTC)

Reason: It's a beautiful image, with the train as a focus point, but then a truly astounding background. This comes from one of the most famous train photographers (Roger Puta), and wikipedia as a whole would be better if exposed to his remarkable work.
Article: Canadian National Railway
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Marty Bernard

Support as nominator – Lectrician2 (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment This image has a misleading title. It is a Canadian National freight train hauled by two SD40-2 locomotives at a passing loop. The location is not given, Alberta is a very large area. There are not eight freight trains in this photograph. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied and pasted the original photograph titles. I could edit it to change the title. I was not the original uploader for this photograph, so I don't know the specific location. Lectrician2 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, overly processed, posterized. --Janke | Talk 16:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The low quality issue is allowed, under a exemption for uniqueness and historical significance. Because of tree growth and more, this shot would be almost impossible to get nowadays. Hence this could be considered "unique". Lectrician2 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may have been good in its day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But historical photographs are allowed to be submitted for featured article status. Shouldn't you consider this photograph in the time period of when it was taken? Plus the uniqueness of the photograph that would be very hard to recreate. Lectrician2 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Also doesn't meet the 1500px requirement of FP criterion 2. Bammesk (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a exception for historical photos. I think that given the idea of this being a older photograph, and it being filmed on kodachrome 2, you could create a exemption. I find that this is a rather unique image that would be hard to replicate, hence being allowed a exception. Lectrician2 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't used in any articles. It should be in an article (FP criterion 5). If it enhances the text of an article sufficiently enough, then it may convince the voters (reviewers) to make an exception and it may have a chance, but that's a hard task, given a somewhat similar image can possibly be shot (albeit painfully). The composition is great. It should be in This article perhaps. I wonder if the original film could be scanned at a higher resolution. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the article criteria, so thanks for notifying me! I really would also like to see it in high resolution. Anyway's, i'l get right onto adding it! Lectrician2 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Insufficient encyclopedic value given overly generic location. No need for a historic image (and the corresponding exception)--I'm sure someone could take a scenic photo of a train somewhere in Alberta these days that would work equally well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low-quality and not historic enough for an exemption; I'm sure the exact same photo can be taken today with higher quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]