Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by juanRubiano - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)- Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005
22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of an unbalanced composition. Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing can fix or make up for the crop at the top. --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
