Support as nominator --Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very representative. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original. Too many issues: poor lighting, composition abiguous (40%+ asphalt, 30%+ sky), not horizontal. Elekhh (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. EV is more important than appearence for VPC. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really has such high EV? What does it tell the reader other than that the Zoo has a desolate entrance gateway area? Elekhh (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the EV is that it's the front gate of the number one zoo in America, and a regionally very well known sight. Also, I went and took the picture due to a request for it during Columbus Zoo and Aquarium's GA review (check the talk page of the article). Yes, the weather was a little dreary that day, but otherwise there would have been long lines of people in the way of a quality image of the gate itself. As for the sky and asphault, could I just upload a cropped version, and maybe try to play with the colors a little? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technical manipulation is generally discouraged: the image should present the subject as acurately as possible. But it should be rotated counter-clockwise to bring it to horizontal position. That will improve the quality. Croping will be difficult because it will lead to loss of important detail, like the human scale on the right. I would attempt however croping off the white bit on the bottom which is most distracting. If you think the crop is not clearly better you can upload it with different file name and propose it as Alt. Elekhh (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK... rotated 0.5 degrees, top & bottom cropped slightly & very minor gamma fix (just to try to brighten it up a little)... didn't want to ovrewrite the original, in case it was too much of a change... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alt is much better and that it was worth the effort. Changed my previous vote for original only. I stay neutral on Alt however, as I don't have enough background knowledge on the topic to judge its EV. Elekhh (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The significance of the subject does not mean the image has encyclopedic value. TBO, the gate does not represent the zoo as well as an aerial photograph of the entire zoo would. --ZooFari 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
