Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2012 at 15:07:49 (UTC)
Original – Broadway Tower, a folly in the English county of Worcestershire. The "Saxon" tower was designed by James Wyatt in 1794 to resemble a mock castle, and built for Lady Coventry in 1799. Broadway Tower sits on the edge of the second highest point in the Cotswolds overlooking the village of Broadway and the Severn Vale. From the top of the tower, on a clear day, as many as 16 English counties can be identified.
Reason
A recent high quality image that places the tower in context of its surroundings offering both scale and perspective. FP and VI at Commons.
Comment Each has their merits. I wasn't sure of the protocol with regards to similar pictures (namely, same subject, composition, angle etc.) and didn't know if a delist & replace may be more in order. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we're talking about this being better than the existing FP, then this is the wrong venue, it would be a D&R nomination, since we already have a FP for this very same subject, I'd have to Oppose on redundancy grounds, that replacing this nominated image on this one tiny page from the previous FP (Which is used in at least 21 pages here and many others elsewhere) seems a bit premature. On this page this nominated image is on only had 14 edits in all of 2011, the fact noone has noticed the replacement of the image so far isn't surprising. If you want to convert this nomination to a D&R then there may be arguments for the replacement of the previous FP, but as it is now, I think the replacement of the image on Broadway Tower by the photographs creator is probably more controversial then helpful. The previous image has some pretty good merits, and has strong in it's technicals, the new proposed image is a little less ideal lighting and a bit more cluttered with the trees without foliage, seems a bit distracting. — raekyt04:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; because both images are taken in very different angles. So I think there is no need to delist one; and both collectively describe the subject well. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raeky. We do not need to have two FPs of this subject. If you feel that this one is stronger, then please open a D/R nomination. Ending up with two very similar FPs of the same subject on the grounds that both are used on different articles to show the same thing is just plain messy. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The already featured photo is better on essentially all accounts, and two images of exactly the same object are not necessary. This photo itself is not FP-worthy, IMO.-- mcshadyplTC00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes one question the entire opinion especially given that it comes from someone that has only had two other edits across all of wikimedia this year. Last time it was from someone that hadn't made an edit in a year that decended out of the heavens to disparage one of my images. Not much different than an IP that drops in after only a few edits on Wikipedia to address concerns over process. Regardless, I won't be submitting this image to D&R. I reiterate my position that subjecting FPs, and in this case the 2007 POTY, to D&R is distasteful and only pits images and people against each other. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see the issue here at all. Both images are good, and they're aesthetically quite different. We have two FPs each of the US Capitol, the Eiffel Tower, the Tower Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as certain animal species. D&R is for situations in which the current image is clearly inferior (or no longer used). Chick Bowen00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
