Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2017 at 17:16:48 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition illustrating the scenic route of the Bernina line with the Piz Alv, Piz Minor and Vadrets Minor peaks in the background; FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Bernina railway, Piz Minor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator – —Bruce1ee^talk 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good comp, sharp detail. Sca (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 11:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Scenic beauty and comp, I agree. But I am concerned with EV. Subject covers just 30-35% of the frame. Majority is just the background. I would support a cropped version giving emphasis to the locomotive itself...-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A moderate crop might be OK, but I think the photographer's intent probably is an environmental shot showing the train in very wintry mountainous country, so we wouldn't want to take too much of that away. Sca (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The picture is not about the train, but about the scenic landscape the railway passes through – hence the EV for Bernina railway. A crop will take away that EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say it's about the train and the landscape, showing the conditions under which the plucky Swiss run trains. Train without landscape or landscape without train wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Sca (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm a bit prejudiced due to family history. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, the train is important, that's what makes the picture interesting. But it's the landscape (with the train) that gives the picture its EV, and a crop would kill that. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the composition is fine just the way it is. Showing the subject in the context of its environment is precisely what creates the EV. A closeup of the train itself would be much less valuable I think. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Jobas (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- --Janke | Talk 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – For caption use: Bernina Pass article lists elevation at 2,328 m./7,638 ft., while Bernina railway says 2,253 m./7,392 ft., and calls it "the highest railway crossing in Europe." At any rate, this photo evidently shows the train at over 7,000 ft. (2,300 m.). Sca (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I've added the elevation to the caption – feel free to reword if necessary. Obviously the railway doesn't quite get to the top of the pass. BTW 7,000 ft. is 2,134 m. not 2,300 m. :-) —Bruce1ee^talk 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful with precision in conversions - numbers should be converted with a similar precision (see MOS:CONVERSIONS). "Over 7,000 feet" is clearly an approximate measurement, so it should be converted to something like 2,100m. Converting from 7,000ft to 2,134m implies more precision than actually exists. TSP (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I've adjusted the conversion to be less precise. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Mile (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Berninabahn zwischen Lagalb und Ospizio Bernina im Winter.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Added to Places/Others. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]