Support edit Good enough until a better one comes by. Also a nice touch to feature the lead image in a featured article (not that that affects my !vote). upstateNYer 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm really not sure about this one. Noise in the sky and blurry foreground; we have an
existing FP of the subject, and probably several in the past. In terms of TFP, I'm sure this has been featured before, promoting this image may offer little value to the encyclopedia as a whole. Given that it's not really amazing, as UpstateNYer has also acknowledged, I see no strong reason to feature this.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (in fact, just check
Talk:Mount Rushmore to confirm that it's had oodles of exposure on the front page)reply
Taking it from the top; admittedly, the foreground is not as sharp as the rest of the image, it is also not of the same importance. Noise in the sky, again, same deal for me. Though I'm not sure what TFP is, the fact that it has been perhaps shown on the front page and previous versions have appeared prominitely in project before doesn't strike me as a reason not to feature it. On the topic of the other featured picture, I think it's quite safe to say that the two are distinct images (the currently featured image seems to have it's EV primarily vested in
Air Force One). This is especially true in light of the multitude of featured bird and insect pictures which have truly striking similarities
68.147.59.209 (
talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC).reply
As a clarification, I am the IP who posted the above, my apologies. Cowtowner 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak support - nice and sharp, great lighting - but would prefer a tighter crop. The rocky outcrop on the very right is particularly distracting because it looks like another face (or am I the only one). I'd take a bit off all four sides
Stevage 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose The saturation of the sky in the nominated version is 176 - an increase of 25% over the
original's 140 - without good reason, since the original saturation looks quite good at the same exposure bump - see uploaded alt.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 11:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose original: Based on PLW's comments. The oversaturation of the sky is unreasonable, unnecessary, and looks very poor.
Maedin\talk 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak support edit, oppose original I definitely prefer this edit. The first picture had a strong overall contrast that made the monument appear dark, namely throughout Lincoln's face. The edit corrects this nicely. --
mcshadyplTC 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)reply
More comments on the edit, please.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 04:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply