Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration

Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration in Perm

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 21:59:07 (UTC)

Original - Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration in the city of Perm

Alternative by Purpy Pupple: Retouched, removed dust and scratches, colour enhanced, contrast improved, slight tone mapping.

Reason: Great quality, good EV, important for the city Perm. Shot by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky in 1910.
Articles in which this image appears: Perm, Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: D V S

Oppose all per below-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice content, but colors are washed out too much. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's only used in galleries. The EV is questionable at best, and I see no reason why a stronger modern shot would not be preferable. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a stronger modern shot would not be preferable because the place now looks much worse [1]. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe this would pass if it was a modern shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the image does have some EV on historical grounds, it is neither particularly eye-catching nor does it have very good image quality. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose alternates -- they look overcooked, are hard on the eyes, and lose significant detail in the shadow area. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The alternates by GreatOrangePumpkin have been removed, and it would seem very strange for me to strongly oppose my own edit :P Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made my own retouched version, as a proof of concept of what retouching, in my opinion, should be like. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note some of the alts have sloppy sourcing/author info, or lack it entirely. Please be careful, and please take those details seriously. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that the sloppy alts have been removed and the remaining one that I made has correct sourcing/author info as far as I know. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose all Not FP quality. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]