Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Angel of the Waters
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 02:41:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great resolution, good composition, and it's a gorgeous statue.
- Articles in which this image appears
- George Robert White
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/Sculpture
- Creator
- Cryptic C62
- Support as nominator --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate the specific feedback that ya'll have given. I figured there would be little chance of this being promoted, but I wanted to see what it would take to make it happen—this is my first submission to FP, and I figured the fastest way to learn would be to simply dive in headfirst. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too much interference from the buildings, especially around the statue's legs. What's that between her feet, a lamppost? The plinth is tilted. Also, it may be just my monitor, but the statue seems very dark, lacking detail; I'd prefer to see more of her face too. Or maybe I'm just talking through my **** :-). Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor lighting, distracting background, wrong framing, subject tilted. In my opinion 'artsy' attempts here only have chances of promotion when the encyclopaedic value and image quality aren't affected, which is not the case. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The scavenger hunt is an awesome idea. I hope they take off in other cities! This photo isn't fantastic though, for the reasons Rwx mentioned. The killer is the lack of lighting on the statue, and s/he's right that the background is distracting. If you could retake the photo at a different time of day so it's face is not so dark, and perhaps try some different perspectives to get a cleaner background, then you'd have a much better chance at achieving FP status. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't the Peer Picture Review the place for this? Just curious... gazhiley.co.uk 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't blame people for coming here for a review, peer review is not exactly boiling with activity... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough gazhiley.co.uk 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – lighting and composition are probably the two biggest problems. A nicer composition might have been achieved if you had stood in front, or only slightly to the side, of the statue. I probably would have stood further away and zoomed in, and taken the picture in portrait orientation. Also, it would be nice if the picture had a geotag (although this isn't a requirement for featured pictures). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- A quick search on Flickr shows that the statue looks quite nice at night. If you stood a bit to the right of where this photograph was taken, and zoomed in on the statue, you'd get a nice shot. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)