Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Parthenon XL.jpg

Original

Reason: Excellent image - sensational. Sharp, good exposure, encyclopedical relevant, everything fine.

Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's so special about that part of Parthenon? where is the caption? _→AzaToth 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@AzaToth: Must there be something special? The picture is good. In which point of the Featured picture criteria does this image in your opinion not fit in? Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5 and point 7. _→AzaToth 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you may be right, but I think the (technical-)quality of the picture is even more important than these points. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the criteria must be met for an image to be promoted. It also fails WP:WIAFP 1c - good composition - as this is a seemingly random corner of the much larger building which is the subject of the article. de Bivort 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent architectural detail photo. The kinds of stone and the orientation are visible. Shows a lot that an overall view cannot, and shows it attractively. Fg2 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice sharp image, but ordinary subject matter. Oscar (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. Clouds are not clean. There are green and pink dusts. Laitche (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Neutral I changed my mind. --Laitche (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shows too little of building. There is no way to tell this is the parthenon and not some other ruined temple. Compare to this photo of the Colosseum. de Bivort 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sure it's nice enough, but given this recent rather contentious FP promotion of a similar image of the same place by the same photographer at possibly the same time, I'd tend to think not. Plus agree with above reasons about being too cut off; the other one's already been promoted with that issue in mind. --jjron (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jjron--Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jjron H92110 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AzaToth Clegs (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]