Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statuefront

Statue of Liberty edit

 
The Statue of Liberty as seen from the Circle Line ferry.
 
Alternative (by Alvinrune)

As an admirer of the artistry and beauty of the Statue of Liberty, I self-nominate this photo because it shows the scale of the statue in relation to the people interacting with it, is well-centered, and was taken at a high resolution in beautiful sunny weather. Many thanks for viewing.

  • Nominate and support. - BigMac | (Talk) 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry to oppose straight away, but the statue's features are indistinct and it's a bit unsharp all over. It's a good shot and excellent for its article, but an extremely high standard has been set on this page by recent city and scenery FPs. ~ VeledanTalk 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, plus I would like to see the statue's face have sunlight on it. -Ravedave 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The composition is good, but there are enough things not "quite" right that I'd be more comfortable waiting for the "perfect" shot, especially for such an iconic landmark. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Second Version I uploaded a second, alternative version of the image. Alvinrune TALK 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - face is in shadow, features are out of focus, unable to read lettering on tablet in liberty's arm. Second version is too red. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ack ChrisRuvolo. --Janke | Talk 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lighting just isn't great, and the second version is fake-looking and reddish. Staxringold 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, both are out of focus. Sky contains artefacts and second image is so much photoshopped it doesn't represent things accurately anymore. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lacks focus and contrast. chowells 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]