Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boden Fortress

Boden Fortress edit

Rödberget fort, seen from the north. The moat and the armored turrets are clearly visible, as well as the magnificent view one has from the fort.

File:Rodberget38edit.jpg

Reduced size edit (1524 px), sharper, less grain.

A beautiful picture on how a modern (20th century) fort may look, in this case Rödberget Fort, part of Boden Fortress, which is the article it appears in. The scenery around the fort itself adds to the image in a great way.

Nominate and support. - -- Elisson • Talk 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grainy, the landscape is pretty but is big and distracts from the subject. And the photo doesn't help me understand the article any better. Dylan 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The graininess is only seen at maximum zoom, so how about sizing down the image? Is that a way to go? The current article is being completely rewritten and expanded here, while not nearly complete, it might give you a hint at what the photo is supposed to show, that is, not only how the forts look, but also how they were placed in the terrain, with a great line of sight. And that leads to why the landscape is still there. -- Elisson • Talk 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... It looks terrible at full size, looks bad at thumbnail and the size it is in the article. But go here, and all of a sudden one makes out the trees radiating outwards, and the fort acquires a sort of grandeur, like it stands up on its bluff and looks down imperiously on its kingdom. Where is this picture taken from? I assume it's from a hill or mountain, but it looks like it's from a helicopter or something. I'm going to weak oppose, however. The telephone wires at the bottom are annoying me the more and more I look at it. Zafiroblue05 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been at the location (did my military service in Boden, spending a lot of time on the firing range on the far left ;) ), so I know how the terrain looks, and the fort is at the absolute peak of the mountain, so the picture must have been taken from a helicopter (or plane, but I doubt that). -- Elisson • Talk 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the reduced-size image I just uploaded. The sharpness is vastly improved, and the graininess is substantially reduced in the edit. An intriguing shape for a fort! And those telephone lines do belong there (G.I. phone home ;-)... --Janke | Talk 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Big Oops!~~ Looked at the page given as a source for the image. It has a copyright notice, Copyright © FÄSTNINGSGUIDEN 2001-2005. This means this picture is ineligible for FP, and even for the entire Wilkipedia! You stated GFDL upon upload, but did you take this picture? Please clarify. --Janke | Talk 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, this specific image cannot be found at Rodbergsfortet.com (Fästningsguiden). I emailed them to see if they had a larger version of a picture they showed on the site, and I asked if I could use it under a free license, they answered by sending me this wonderful picture and the only demand for me to use it freely was that the source of the picture was stated. Their email in Swedish for those who understand it:

Hej
Bifogar en bild som du kan använda under en förutsättning samt ett önskemål.
1. Ange att bilden har Fotograf/källa: Fästningsguiden Boden
2. Vore kul att se vad du skriver när bilden används meila detta till: xxx@xxx.xxx

Rough translation: Hi, attaching a picture you can use under one condition and one wish: 1. mention that the picture has photographer/source: Fästningsguiden Boden, 2. would be fun to see what you write when the picture is used, mail it to: xxx@xxx.xxx Hope this clears a few things up. -- Elisson • Talk 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that clarifies it. I'd suggest you upload this to Commons instead, and use the CC-BY-SA license. You can add a line with the source there, that has to be included wherever the image is used. I'm not quite sure GDFL can specify that - if someone else can clarify that, please? If the pic is left in the Wikipedia space, please copy that permission, and the translation to the image page. BTW: I added this picture to the fortification article, too!--Janke | Talk 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that. Should I upload the full-size image or the reduced one? While the full size is a bit grainy, isn't it better to have it available instead of a smaller modified version? Thanks for the advice (and the support vote!). -- Elisson • Talk 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is good enough to be used for the article, but there is too much landscape and graininess to be a featured picture. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great pic for the article/encylopedia and full kudos to you for asking and obtaining permission like that, but I find the composition a bit unexciting for FP. And it doesn't illustrate the fact that the fortress is made up of several of these, not one. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a bit hard to get all five forts to fit in one picture. ;) -- Elisson • Talk 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The copyright is somewhat iffy. The email exchange quoted above doesn't say anything about the GFDL, or about commercial reuse and modification. The email reply only says that we can use the picture, as long as we credit them. That sounds a lot like {{permission}}, which would make it a CSD. dbenbenn | talk 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked for a free license picture and they sent me this one, under the condition that the source be mentioned. I take that as the picture not being a "copyright with permission" picture. Most people don't know about "licenses" more than copyrighted and not copyrighted, and they probably belong to that group, so I myself added a license (GFDL) that I knew about. CC-BY-SA might be better though, as Janke mentioned further up. -- Elisson • Talk 19:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. It's interesting, but it's somewhat too blurry for my liking. enochlau (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]