Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden Statue

Golden Statue

The Statue of Liberty from the east, silhouetted against a golden sunset.

This is one of the most stunning pictures I have ever seen. I think it really speaks for itself, but it certainly meets and exceeds all the criteria in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. I am blown away by the overall effect of this picture -- its composition and balance, and the color of the sky are remarkable.

It appears in the Statue of Liberty article.

Nominate and support. - Robert 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lens flare reduces contrast, noise prominent throughout the image, white balance obviously off, overall unsharp and not terribly encyclopedic. In thumbnail it's pretty (other than the white balance), but at full resolution it's not FP material. -- Moondigger 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moondigger. I agree completely. I don't see how a backlit subject and a blown out sun is encyclopedic. --Andrew c 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and this is encyclopedic? I don't get it.
  - The mad scientist picture is a caricature that represents a stock fictional character. It perfectly exemplifies the stereotypical mad scientist. Thus, it's encyclopedic. This image shows a backlit Statue of Liberty. No detail on the statue can be seen. No information about its location in relation to Manhattan be determined. You can't even tell it's on an island. It's certainly pretty, however, so its emotional impact (especially given your preconceptions about the statue) is strong, but its encyclopedic value is almost nil. howch e ng {chat} 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Black and white is bad enough at removing encyclopedic value, but sepia? Also, the lens flare is much too distracting. NauticaShad e s 09:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's been sepia-toned. The combination of full sun in the frame, backlighting, and incorrect white balance make it look almost sepia, though. -- Moondigger 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I agree that the composition and color are interesting, I don't think this image is either sharp or encyclopedic enough to become a featured picture. --Tewy 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While this is a fine picture, it does not really contribute anything nor explains anything. And i think those are some of the requirements for a picture to be a featured picture. DifiCa 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It's not that great. We shoud send Diliff or Fir to NYC :-). | AndonicO 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a pitty resolution is so bad. I think the composition is great. -- Alvesgaspar 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it could have been a perfect one, but there is glow under the lady's feet and low resolution makes it not-crispy clear Towsonu2003 22:41, 18 October 2006
Oppose. Not very encyclopedic, its a bit on the small side, and there's noise throughout the entire picture. Marblewonder 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]