Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Little Malvern Priory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2012 at 22:00:00 (UTC)

Original – Little Malvern Priory, in the village of Little Malvern near Malvern, Worcestershire, was a Benedictine monastery c.1171-1537.

Reason: Another candy by Saffron Blaze
Articles in which this image appears: Little Malvern Priory, List of English abbeys, priories and friaries serving as parish churches
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Saffron Blaze

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron's work is great Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Resolution not fantastic and the composition feels very tight at the bottom. I suspect the point was to eliminate distracting foreground elements but it's a shame IMO. Otherwise, nice composition as per the rest of the series of abbeys, churches, etc. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. f/18 isn't ideal. This goes some way to explaining the lack of detail, and I assume this was cropped from a wider photo, rather than downsampled to 1667×1786px. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a little snapshot-ish, the composition is rather poor, the building looks like it is leaning to the left, light artifacts throughout the picture (not that noticeable, but they do appear to be present.) Also, I am not impressed with the reason the nominator gave, on why he thinks the picture should be promoted to FP status. Dusty777 17:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So let me give you the more obvious phrasing: High EV, impressive, good quality. Tomer T (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably put those into the reasons for nominating. Dusty777 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Too soft at this somewhat low resolution; we normally expect rather more of architecture photography, in terms of sharpness and detail. (Also, there are dust spots. Should be easy to take care of before nominating.) Julia\^talk 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pretty picture that needs to be re-shot to do the ruined priory justice. I was surprised it was nominated here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron Blaze. Sanyambahga (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - though the photo ticks most of the assessment boxes, the composition is a bit awry - it seems to be cropped to create a composition with the background, rather than focus on the building; the building looks like it is leaning; the flattened perspective is useful in many ways, but seems to have been achieved by cropping the centre of a high-res photo taken by a non-telephoto lens. Overall, it is perfectly adequate for illustrating a WP article, but not a great photographic example IMO. Sionk (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]