Support as nominator --—
Rodtalk 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Support — Very nice. (Not sure we need the grassy bank in the extreme foreground, or quite so much sky at top.)
Sca (
talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I rather agree with Sca on this one. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment — Hate to be picky, but Alt. 1, while preferable, takes out rather too much of the reflection, IMPO (in my picky opinion). Suggest cropping bottom from just above grassy bank at left straight across, leaving in most of bell tower reflection.
Sca (
talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I've recropped to leave in some more of the reflection & uploaded as crop 2 (Alt 2).—
Rodtalk 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I hate to do this, but Alt 2, while the crop is good at the bottom, now feels constrained at the top. Can we have a little more sky? Support original in the meantime. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
We'll get this right! Will add some sky. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Herald, I count six for ALT1, plus 2 !votes which make no distinction. Three !votes for the original, plus 2 !votes which make no distinction. You may be counting
Adam Cuerden's !vote twice, and based on
Sca's later !vote I don't think his/her support for the original still stands (although Sca may want to clarify a bit). —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The issues are 1) I am not sure Sca's older vote still stands and 2) the ALT may have (has, IMHO) more supports. I would appreciate it if
Armbrust or
Julia W (both well-versed in closing FPCs, and neither with an interest in this nomination) would have a look to double check the count. To avoid issues later on it's better to double check the close, especially as the !voting for this one is all kinds of messed up (just look at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Alitta succinea (epitoke form) for an example of how issues with the tallying can sully a nomination). —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Also,
Herald, and just a note in case you choose to close nominations later on down the road: in the case of a close !vote, it is best to provide explicit counts, or mention how you came to an understanding of what the consensus is. We haven't had a really close !vote in a couple months, at least, so I can't give you an example off the top of my head. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Clarification — My support was for eitherAlt. 1 or Alt. 2 — in other words, whichever one of the two garnered the most support. Thus it's correct to infer that I oppose original, since better (and very similar) versions became available later. Does that help? Sorry to be prolix.
Sca (
talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I far prefer the original. I'll withdraw my support for the alt, to simplify? Adam Cuerden(
talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
This would seem to promote Alt. 1, yes?
Sca (
talk) 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Could an uninvolved person make a list of Supports and Opposes for this, so that we can see where everything is. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Alt 1 has 6 explicit supports (
Crisco 1492,
Saffron Blaze,
Adam Cuerden,
Pine,
Amandajm,
Sca) and here we must presume that, as Rod has said nothing, he is at best ambivalent about the Alts but not necessarily supporting.
The difficulty with this approach is that of the six explicitly stated supports for the Alt, three prefer the original. If we apply arbitrary weighting, +1 for each support, -1 for each oppose, and +0.5 and -0.5 respectively for preferences, both the original and Alt 1 have a cumulative score of 4.5. Adam's subsequent clarification that he withdraws support for Alt1 swings this to the original for sure. It's up to you guys whether you accept this last minute change or prefer to perhaps ask Rod for his preference as the creator of the image in question. Hope that helps (but it probably doesn't!)
Julia\
talk 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Crisco has never stated he opposes the original. Unless explicitly said, we can, at most, presume neutrality. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Is it time for mediation?
Sca (
talk) 02:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm neutral on the original. It's a nice picture, but I'm not a big fan of the distracting foliage at the top. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm new to featured pictures so not really sure of the procedures etc. I like the original, which is why I took it and nominated it, but understand the comments about the need for the crop so although I would still support the original in a vote I would not be upset if it was the Alt.—
Rodtalk 07:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
If Rod prefers the original, and Adam has withdrawn his support from ALT1, then I guess that pretty much settles it. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Also you've clarified now that you're neutral on the original, whereas before I had counted you as an implied oppose. So original it is.
Julia\
talk 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm confused.
Sca (
talk) 17:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)reply
@Herald: The same decision was made, yes, though with a bit more clarification than you had to work with. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Sca this is one of our more difficult closes at FPC. I think Julia made the right decision after this discussion. --Pine✉ 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply