Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Château Chantilly

Château Chantilly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

Original – Château de Chantilly, as seen from north-west.

Reason: High EV and quality
Articles in which this image appears: Château de Chantilly
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jebulon

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A nice picture, good enough clarity. Oakley77 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Oakley77 Jkadavoor (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how the EV is effected by the fact that the view is essentially the "rear" of the property. Admittedly it is quite an impressive rear and it's rather hard to get a decent picture of the front as the approach is almost at right angles and rises to the level of the first floor. Yomangani^talk 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a free standing building with four façades, so it cannot be captured with a single shot. Hence we can have multiple FPs, including one from this angle. --ELEKHH^T 07:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At full size looks like it's been overprocessed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Aaadddaaammm and Yomangani. Pine^✉ 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not bad, but IMO it's also not good enough for FP. Standard for architectural shots is very high (thanks to Diliff!) and here we have a single frame image with average sharpness/definition when a panorama would have been quite easy to do and would have improved resolution vastly. Also a better choice of composition/angle and lighting would have given the shot some much needed wow factor - eg [1]. It's a beautiful subject and the shot could clearly be improved --Fir0002 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on this particular file, but I wouldn't refer to the standards of another user when assessing a file - among Wikipedia's best work is to be taken in a more narrow reading than that - "best examples of a given subject". That's the only comparative criterion; the others would require changing the criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Yes it lacks wow despite the good subject, in part because of the not so beautiful bridge, but still provides a good overview. --ELEKHH^T 07:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]