Support as nominator—kallerna 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Would like to see a longer part of the bridge; furthermore, aren't the square pillars concrete, or do my eyes (or the photo) deceive? --
Janke |
Talk 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it's very scenic, but only shows a small part of the bridge, and one where, as Janke says, almost all the historic wooden pillars have been replaced with concrete. I think the
previous lead image gave a better impression of the bridge's size and primary construction;
this overhead view perhaps better still.
TSP (
talk) 16:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – I added a
wider image to the article, by the nominator.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn Agree with the comments, however IMO wider image is not composition-wise as aesthetic.
—kallerna 04:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator—kallerna 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Would like to see a longer part of the bridge; furthermore, aren't the square pillars concrete, or do my eyes (or the photo) deceive? --
Janke |
Talk 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it's very scenic, but only shows a small part of the bridge, and one where, as Janke says, almost all the historic wooden pillars have been replaced with concrete. I think the
previous lead image gave a better impression of the bridge's size and primary construction;
this overhead view perhaps better still.
TSP (
talk) 16:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – I added a
wider image to the article, by the nominator.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn Agree with the comments, however IMO wider image is not composition-wise as aesthetic.
—kallerna 04:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply