This is an archive of past discussions about Washington, D.C.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
At around 2,000 words, this largely unsourced section is way too long, especially when you compare it to those of other FAs on populous cities such as Boston#Sports and Minneapolis#Sports. I think it would be way better if we wrote one paragraph for each sport instead of many subsections each containing multiple paragraphs. Overall, this article is 14,445 words long, which is quite long, so trimming the sports section will make this article a lot easier to read. Wow (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand the concerns. I would still suggest providing a full paragraph to each sport. We don't need to have as much detail or length, but the current section is far too short. Other cities, like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York have far larger sections. Dmford13 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dmford13: So here is the thing that I think is a misunderstanding. "Sports" is a subsection of the "Culture" section. It's not a history section, it's not a biography section, it's not a list section, it's not an economy section, and it's not an exhaustive section, not every sports organization or institution is required or expected to be itemized. It's not even necessarily about professional franchises, it's about humans and sports culture. This is the sort of source that should be the basis of paragraphs, which start with sentences like "The Washington Nationals are D.C.'s most popular sports team according to yadayada."
I want to work with you on this, you obviously care a lot about this topic. I too, am a D.C. sports superfan. But I can't have edit wars. I'm happy to bring this issue to WP:3RD if an outside opinion would help explain why 1300 words across 13 paragraphs is still excessive for this summary section, and why a paragraph for each sports team isn't and shouldn't be a goal. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk15:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
If you compare this section to the sports section of many other cities with a similar number of sports teams/events, this is much shorter. Also, a ton of the information in the section is simply not correct. The Commanders do not have 5 super bowls, but 3 (I just fixed it). Also, the tennis tournament is no longer called the Citi Open. Much of the information about the rugby teams and less popular sports teams is incorrect--several of those teams don't exist any longer or have moved. If you look at Boston, every sports has a (lengthy) paragraph. Same with Philadelphia, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, and Chicago. Now, each of those pages gives sports its own section--that's what we should do for Washington, DC. We should remove Sports from the culture section, give it its own section, and expand it so each sport has its own paragraph. We can remove some of the historic references that I originally included (though a ton of those cities have detailed historic references for each sport), but I think a few historic points--such as the year a championship was won and a major player or coach involved--should be kept. Again, please look at these other cities for reference. But, again, much information currently included is simply incorrect. I think we should follow the template of other major cities with a big sports footprint. Dmford13 (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those errors out, those are good to fix. Again, I think whataboutism is the wrong method for determining what to include or exclude from any article. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. There will always be a longer article somewhere, and longer ≠ better. Instead of copying what other articles do, we should look to build the section to cover sufficient information to give the reader a good overview of this part of life in the District. What we're talking about is called scope, there will always be information that Wikipedia leaves off of overview articles like this one.
We do have some good advice from the cities WikiProject, and looking at that, to me, what is currently missing are "sports that people participate in." If it is helpful to compare other articles to get a sense of summary structure, try reading the sports sections on the FA and GA U.S. state articles, Virginia#Sports, Massachusetts#Sports, or Texas#Sports. But again, just because those editors chose to include something there, doesn't mean we must then make the same choice here on this article. And if we want to promote Sports from subsection to section, that's fine, but that doesn't change the scope or expectations for summary style. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Crime in Demographics?
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
While I agree that having "crime" under demographics feels incorrect, I also don't think having it as a separate section makes sense. Other cities, like Chicago, known for their crime issues (regardless of whether some city articles should have more of an emphasis on crime), don't have it as its own section. I like Chicago's set up -- "Law and government" with crime nested in. You could rename "city government" for DC "law and government" and add crime there. Defrank1 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Citations needed
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
More than two years ago I raised concerns about the number of missing citations in this article. Since then this number has only grown to 28, which would be an automatic fail for an FA candidate. Unless this issue is fixed soon, I don't see how we're not going to have to nominate this for FA review. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "missing citations"? Are you referring to dead links within citations? Please be more specific as to what is missing and where, as it will help with corrections. —ADavidB00:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
(I later realized you mean the number of "citation needed" statements within the article, as this section is titled.) —ADavidB00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I've resolved four of these by adding sources, and invite help from other editors. Removing unsourced information is sometimes a good response as well. —ADavidB05:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Why is the National Cathedral in the Info Box but I was blocked from adding the National Basilica for religious balance?
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you're gonna have the National Cathedral (Episcopalian) it's only fair to also have the National Basilica (Catholic) otherwise it just looks like religious favoritism. Either have both or neither.
These are both significant architectural landmarks of near identical size (the National Basilica is the 2nd tallest building in DC) it doesn't make sense to have one but not the other IMO.
I was told by a mod that I could not add St. Patrick's Cathedral to the New York City info box because that would be "favoritism towards Catholics when American cities have churches of many denominations" WHY DOES THAT NOT APLLY HERE?
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Skimming through this article, way too many of the images are just exterior shots of neoclassical-style buildings. D.C. has plenty of those, yes, but they connote very little to readers, most of whom won't be able to identify them at a glance, about what content will be in that article section. In a few cases, they are the only real option, but in many others we could swap them out for better alternatives. Sdkbtalk06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and overhauled the images to try to address this. While doing so, I noticed many other deficiencies; overall this needs an FAR quite badly. Sdkbtalk07:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll say it again maybe somebody will listen this time
Latest comment: 8 months ago17 comments7 people in discussion
I was told adding St. Patrick's Cathedral to the New York City collogue was "unfair religious favoritism" why does the same not apply here with the National Cathedral? It doesn't make any sense. Mods need to address this. Either apply rules consistently or don't have them at all. Alfred Carbo (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The national cathedral is a major landmark in DC, far more so that the National Basilica. I say this as a Catholic myself: the infobox is not a venue for "this montage should include X image to represent my community in X city". The montage is a device used to quickly highlight major visual landmarks of the city, that's it. If you ask me, St. Patricks Cathedral would be fine in the NYC infobox, but that city also has more landmarks than most of the country combined, so what makes the cut of the montage is always going to be disapointing to someone. But you are crying fowl over nothing. If you look at Saint Paul, Minnesota, the Catholic cathedral there is in the montage because its without question one of the most important local landmarks. Mexico City also shows the massive Catholic cathedral in the montage - would you cry fowl there is no protestant one? What matters is the prominence of the monument - not the faith of those who practice in it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
"The national cathedral is a major landmark in DC, far more so that the National Basilica."
I don't necessarily disagree but worth noting the National Basilica actually gets more visitors each year, about 1 million at the National Basilica vs. about 800,000 at the National Cathedral.
And I was explicitly told by Mods adding St. Patrick's Cathedral to the NYC infobox (which is the most famous church in the country period) was "unfair favoritism towards Catholics" if those rules are gonna be in place in New York with its famously large Catholic population they certainly should be applied consistently in our national capitol. Keep the main infobox secular and put the National Cathedral down with the other religious buildings in the religion section of the page. I think that's fair.
St. Paul isn't as big of a city, doesn't have many landmarks and the Cathedral there is huge so I guess that would make sense and Mexico is 80% Catholic so the same rules really wouldn't apply. Alfred Carbo (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
You are looking at it from a skewed perspective - the infobox is a representation of physical landmarks, that is it. There is no notion here of "fair" or "unfair". Inclusion of a "protestant cathedral" does not mean anything other than the building is famous. NYC is famed for a lot of things, but I can't say St. Patrick ranks in my top 10 most notable landmarks (but that may just be me!). I dont know what anyone told you on the NYC page, but if the consensus there is that St. Patricks isnt a great addition to the montage on that article, then so be it. This has nothing to do with secular vs religious favoritism or catholic vs protestant favoritism. It has to do with iconic landmarks representing a city and the consensus of the editors working on those articles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If we go by your logic is the National Cathedral a top 10 DC landmark? I would say not (at least not for me personally).
Not just NYC but a lot of other American cities (including but not limited too, Boston, Baltimore & Philly) have their info boxes explicitly kept secular (I know I've tried to add churches in the past and got told a big fat NO) but D.C. of all the cities has a church in their info box. It just seems bizarre and hypocritical to me on the part of Wikipedia. There should be a similar standard of play for cities in the same country.
And if any American city legitimately should have its info box kept secular it's Washington, D.C. the national capitol
Composing a collage is not as simple as just listing out the most recognizable landmarks in a city and using the top ones. If we did that for D.C., the infobox would be entirely National Mall monuments/memorials, which would be a touristy/incomplete representation of the city. We're using the National Cathedral currently to represent D.C.'s many landmarks outside the mall, and also just since it's a really visually compelling photo of an architecturally striking building.
That said, I'm not wedded to it if we can find something better. Particularly, if we were to replace it, I think it could be nice to have a photo of an embassy take its place, as those are also a big part of D.C. If anyone has a suggestion for a high-quality photo of a recognizable embassy that looks good in vertical orientation and at small scale, feel free to share. Sdkbtalk17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The Peruvian Embassy (File:Embassy of Peru in Washington, D.C.jpg)
Also I’d suggest maybe a photo of the Vice Presidential Residency or Rock Creek National Park to show off DC’s diverse landscape could work 100.38.57.194 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point. But maybe it is still a good idea in order to determine which one of the two cathedrals to pick. If a cathedral is in the infobox. An ngram search is another alternative, among others. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
We should trim the image spam in the lead. 11 or 12 images for three or four paragraphs is beyond excessive. Accessibility nightmare that loses us readers. Moxy🍁 00:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Graham87 sorry I was not more specific. I pinged you because Moxy said, Accessibility nightmare that loses us readers. What is your opinion from the accesibility perspective. Do you have suggestions from this perspective? Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone but I'm a visual person and always like lots of photo references in Wikipedia articles, I think it's mostly fine the way it is, my only real concern (as before mentioned) is the infobox. Alfred Carbo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
1965 map...
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See in this edit:
The legend on the map notes that it was "photorevised" in 1983. That revision appears to have removed most of the "tempos" which were in the mall area until around 1970 (the caption is inaccurate because it does not take the revision into account) TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Washington, D.C. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The geocode currently provided for Washington, D.C. actually corresponds to Baltimore, Maryland.
@NDMIwiki: Hi! I'm seeing coordinates at the top of the article that are for a point roughly north of the Capitol Building and no other coordinates. Where in the article are you seeing the coordinates that are for a Baltimore location? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I apologize — looking at it now looks fine, but when I looked at it earlier and clicked, it took me to a location in downtown Baltimore. It may have just been a glitch in translation, or momentary. NDMIwiki (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Splitting the article
Latest comment: 7 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Okay but that's not saying they're any different. There is one entity, the District of Columbia, which is also known as "Washington". Just like how the City and County of San Francisco are the exact same entity, or the city of New Orleans and Orleans Parish. We need more than Blackmamba31248 saying they're different to split the article, you need to explain why and how. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The state of Louisiana disagrees - Orleans Parish is equal to the city of New Orleans. They are the same entity, in all ways. Just like how Washington and the district are the same entity. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, this is your third time now, perhaps at some point you'll figure out how the article is spelled that you want created. --Golbez (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
In 2020, myself and a few other editors did a comprehensive redesign of this article's collage. We looked at the corpus of available quality images, considered the various visual signifiers of the city (going beyond just the touristy National Mall view), and applied established best practices for collage composition. The version we came up with (above left) I thought was really good. Unfortunately, image collages have a bad habit of deteriorating if not closely monitored, and when I checked in recently, it had deteriorated to the version on the right. Going through the changes:
The deteriorated version puts the captions under each individual image rather than at the bottom, breaking up its visual cohesion and increasing its overall length (which is particularly bad, since space is at a high premium given the article's already-long infobox). There can be an argument for doing that sometimes when the captions are really important (although personally I think such cases are very rare), but given that many of D.C.'s icons are globally recognizable, it's particularly weak here.
The 2020 design has a nice balance. It includes three images of iconic National Mall landmarks, but balances those with others: the National Cathedral, representing all D.C.'s landmarks outside the Mall; a featured picture of a WMATA station, a system known for its iconic architecture and encountered daily by many Washingtonians; storefronts in Adams Morgan, giving a sense of D.C.'s economic character and local neighborhoods; and displays in the Air and Space Museum to represent the Smithsonian museums.
The choices in the deteriorated version, by contrast, are weak. Collage images appear smaller than normal ones, so it's important that they look good at small scale. The top image is far too zoomed out to work for that — the Capitol building is miniscule, and basically nothing else is visible. Farther down, I'm flattered that an image I took of the Wharf is used, but it's very generic — it could be a marina in any city, so does nothing to visually identify D.C. The image of Georgetown is also so far zoomed out that the only identifiable element is the Key Bridge, which is not exactly the Golden Gate. The Smithsonian Castle image, while nice, is a poorer choice to represent D.C.'s museums than a gallery interior — someone who doesn't live here is unlikely to know what that building is, so it just adds to this article's overload of building exterior images rather than instantly connoting museums.
Given all this, I propose that we restore the curated 2020 design. Courtesy pinging Cristiano Tomás, who reverted my recent attempt to do so, and APK, who was involved in the redesign. Sdkbtalk00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why including an interior Metro image is ludicrous. Metro's interior brutalist design is an iconic feature. Overall there are way too many photos in the article. Same goes for a lot of the neighborhood pages. APKhi :-) (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás has now reverted the edit twice, without engaging here, most recently with summary restoring stable montage - it is BAD PRACTICE to have INDOOR IMAGES in a city's montage, I dont know how many times I have to write this. From Tokyo to Toronto, Paris to Beijing, London to Los Angeles. There doesn't seem to be any blanket consensus that I'm aware of that it is bad practice to have indoor images in the city, and examples of other cities that don't happen to have indoor images doesn't constitute one. Building from first principles, images in city collages ought to be visual signifiers representative of the city, and if indoor images fit that bill, why not use them? Sdkbtalk03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sdkb Unfortunate wording, my bad. I'd call it rather unnatural. The current image is dark, the depths even more so, and the building appears to have a color gradient from yellowish to almost dark grey, despite being actually white. Since we're on the topic: we could possibly crop the image of the Capitol to center the dome a bit more. –Tobias (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
Some of the pictures feel really dated (i.e., 2000's) and it would be nice to have a more recently taken images on the page. Arkamus24 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this here. For ease of reference, here is the proposed new collage. Compare it to "2020 consensus" at the top of the Talk page.
Going photo by photo, I think that the 2020 picture of the Mall, with the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monuments prominent and identifiable, serves as a better visual summary of the District. Iconic as it were. The proposed replacement, at thumbnail size, fails in that regard. The picture of the Capitol Dome is a nice one, probably a better "photo", but personally I preferred the one that included a bit of green and blue, as well as more visual context. I'm not crazy about the 2020 pic of the Spirit of St. Louis (it's kind of monotonic, and cluttered) but I prefer to the exterior photo of what IMHO is not a very interesting building. I'd sum up by saying that I haven't got any objection to updating the collage but the pictures we choose need to do as good a job or better of giving the reader a quick and comprehensible visual summary - or at least sampler - of the District. JohnInDC (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@JohnInDC Above there is no consensus on which photo collage should remain in the article. Furthermore, the montage with the panoramic image of the city was in the article long before this discussion started and most articles about cities have panoramic images in their photo gallery. Why would Whashigton, DC, be any different? What is the problem with the photo collage proposed by me? Is there any way we can reach an agreement? Chronus (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I see a March 3-17, 2024, consensus to retain the 2020 version over another that had been proposed and discussed. That's quite recent. Separately - this is an FA, its visual features are important, and there's a caution embedded in the source that asks editors to come here and obtain consensus before making changes to the carefully curated collage. Indeed for those reasons just two days ago I reverted similar changes and asked the editor to bring the matter here, which he did, and I responded this morning. That discussion is barely underway. Can we let that one play out a bit before we take on another? Pinging @APK, @Sdkb, @PRRfan and @Cristiano Tomás, who participated in the March discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Here are links to prior collage discussions, dating to 2018. These may be helpful in our discussion.
Any montage with an interior shot of a metro is a non-starter in my opinion (and completely breaks convention and precedent of nearly every city infobox montage on Wikipedia). Other than that, the Air and Space picture is not really interesting visually (the pic chosen could be confused with any random office park in VA, minus the spire) - plenty of other smithsonian museums could fit that space better, like the NMAAHC or the national gallery. The image of the Capitol dome should also be ideally a daylight image, like any image in the infobox. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm really mystified by this rash of unilateral, undiscussed edits to the photo collage in contravention of the request in the source code. Today's makes three separate revisions in the space of four days. This is a Featured Article and it doesn't work for different editors to come by every other day to revise the collage to include those photos that each editor prefers. It's not hard to show suggested changes on the Talk page and let interested editors hash it out. Cristiano, thanks for your comments. JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It is widely agreed that indoor pictures are bad practice for the collage. Therefore, the Metro and the interior of the museum must be replaced with other, outdoor images. If this is not done, then the page fails to conform with Wiki standards. For a city filled with iconic structures and neighborhoods, it's very easy to find replacements. Cristiano and I are on the same page here. Therefore, with a vote of 2 to 1, it's clear those images should be replaced. Dmford13 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for coming here to discuss your concerns. Personally, I'm okay with the Metro photo - as someone pointed out above, the design is iconic, a marker of design in Washington in the 20th century, literally award-winning. I'm also not sure there's any Wikipedia standard or guideline that forbids or cautions against interior photos in photo collages - I would think instead it's just common practice. Separately, Consensus is not a vote. After you peruse that link I think you'll agree these issues need more airing before we close out discussion.
All that said, I take your points, and wouldn't fall on my sword to keep the Metro photo. What photo - or photos - would you, or anyone, propose to put in its place; and why that photo? Let's see what we can agree on. Thanks again for talking about it. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not aware of any guidelines stating this as well. Changing the image of the metro isn't useful, as it's not possible to show a metro from the outside. However, this is different for the image of the National Air and Space Museum. –Tobias (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The current Air & Space photo does portray the famous Spirit of St. Louis, which is a nice illustration of what can be viewed there (better than a photo of the moon rocks!), but I've always thought the thing to be a bit dark and monochromatic. Though, if we were to replace it I don't know that I'd use an exterior shot of that museum. It's - okay, but not particularly distinctive or attractive. Also, Washington being what it is, there's a big temptation to include pictures of the many famous buildings here - and there sure are a lot - but they tend to be of the same kind in the same place, which is repetitive and boring and doesn't give a good, rounded sense of all the things the city is. I suspect that's how we wound up with more interior shots than perhaps the usual big-city collage gets. Maybe the Smithsonian Castle? I dunno. Just spit-balling here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Right, that's why I changed it with a photo of stores in Georgetown. The picture was placed right next to the stores of Adams Morgan. The whole page doesn't include any pics of the commercial part of Georgetown, which is probably the most famous part of the city outside of the Mall and downtown area. I suggest adding a picture of the storefronts in Georgetown and have that replace the museum. Dmford13 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
What specific files do you suggest for the swap? A picture of Georgetown could be nice, but I would rather replace the Adams Morgan pic — museums are an iconic part of D.C.'s identity and should ideally be represented in the collage, whereas storefronts in Georgetown would more represent D.C.'s economy/neighborhood life, which is what the Adams Morgan pic currently does. (I am slightly hesitant to go with Georgetown over Adams Morgan, though, since swankier ≠ automatically better, and Adams Morgan is perhaps more typical of D.C. neighborhood commercial districts.) Sdkbtalk04:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Here I do have a preference - the Adams Morgan photo adds a nice splash of color to a collection of photos of a town that seems to feature little color otherwise. The photo is well-composed, nicely lit, and takes in several storefronts. The proposed Georgetown photo is none of those - it's just a backlit photo of the Gap (which doesn't even occupy the building any more). I also agree with the observation that Adams Morgan is a little more representative of Washington-on-the-ground. I'd keep it in place of Georgetown, even a good photo. Perhaps someone could locate a photo of Federal style housing on Capitol Hill, or Georgetown, to illustrate some of the city's wonderful housing stock (even if it's out of reach of all but the wealthiest). JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's the Georgetown photo, at collage size, for ease of reference:
Hm, I just noticed that one of the Georgetown pictures was substituted for the Air & Space one several weeks ago, without noting it here or in the edit summary. That's disappointing - I thought we were talking about it and trying to reach consensus.
I think that Georgetown photo (all three of them in fact) are colorless and uninteresting and not worthy of the photo montage that headlines the page. Something showing the lovely federal residential architecture of Georgetown or the Hill would be much more suitable and I'll see about finding something. If I make a change I'll be sure to mention it here. JohnInDC (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I found a high-quality, recent photo of Key Bridge and substituted it for the storefronts. It's outdoors, colorful and iconic and IMHO is a distinct improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the undiscussed change. It looks like you actually substituted out the museum photo rather than the storefronts photo, which doesn't seem like an improvement to me. I'm open to replacing the Adams Morgan photo, especially since it appears oversaturated, but I'd want some replacement that captures the character of a local D.C. neighborhood. I don't think the bridge photo really does that. Sdkbtalk15:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the image (Georgetown stores) that was replaced with the Key Bridge one. I don't consider the colorful Adams Morgan image to be a problem, especially in its smaller size in the infobox. —ADavidB17:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The undiscussed change had replaced the Air & Space photo (suitably representative, but interior, dark) with the Georgetown one, which to my eyes is nondescript, kind of bland and, at thumbnail size, could be any three buildings from any east coast city. Really not up to FA inbox snuff. Rather than revert the change I tried to find something else to put in, as the museum photo seems to leave some folks cold. I made an (admittedly) quick search for photos of nice DC residential housing and, failing to turn up anything that looked like much, chose the Key Bridge photo instead. I'm not wedded to the bridge photo at all but do think that any substitute needs to be visually compelling. We can leave the bridge photo, or go back to the museum pending a search, but I think the Georgetown photo is a non-starter. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see we had some editing back-and-forth yesterday that I missed. The "stable version" was of the Air & Space museum, not Key Bridge. I'm going to revert to that one pending consensus on a replacement, which only wants for the finding. JohnInDC (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
