Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barn Pano(9467)-Relic38.jpg

File:Barn Pano(9467)-Relic38.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2009 at 16:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Barn Pano(9467)-Relic38.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barn Pano(9467)-Relic38.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Relic38 -- Relic38 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Note that the silo was actually tilted, not the image. In fact it had cables around it to keep it from collapsing. Unfortunately, nothing could prevent the bulldozers from knocking it down. --Relic38 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Relic38 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Airwolf (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose Crop is too tight IMO, especially on the right side. Also I find the buildings in the background too distracting. Apart from that it's a very nice shot of a fascinating building! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I change my vote now that the main reason for oppose has been fixed, but I can't bring myself to support. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would have loved to support this one (the "leaning tower" is cool), but unfortunately, nothing in this picture is really sharp. -- JovanCormac 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I change my vote to  Support, since the new version uploaded by Relic38 is indeed an improvement. -- JovanCormac 10:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess we need a discussion about sharpness standards, as some people put the bar very high recently. -- MJJR (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem, I'm ready to have this discussion any time.
      About this particular picture: The foreground (grass) is so blurry you can barely make out its structure, which looks quite odd at full resolution. The main subject (barn), while in focus, lacks crispness. The shingles on the tower are quite blurry around the edges, as are the two weathertops on the roof. The background, obviously, isn't sharp either. Overall, the image is missing a part that's really crisp which would serve as the focus of attention for the viewer, and because of that it shouldn't be featured IMO. -- JovanCormac 09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Both the crop and the sharpness is fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think sharpness is fine but I agree with NEUROtiker, only thing that bother me is the tight crop.   ■ MMXX^talk  05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have lots more space on the right side (two more frames), but it's just trees. I'll see about adding some more to the right side. --Relic38 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, I think the sharpness is more than good enough for an 18 megapixel image. --Aqwis (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info  Done New version uploaded with a wider crop and a minor adjustment to sharpen a little. I would appreciate it if everyone could check again. Thanks in advance. --Relic38 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good, very aesthetic --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture