Victorian Arts Centre Spire, Melbourne II

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2011 at 12:32:02 (UTC)

Reason

Previous nomination in April ended with four supports after there were a couple of stitching issues identified which took me a few days to fix and delayed things. Has been stable in articles since that time. Everything else as per original nom (high res, high quality, detailed and sharp ...). Thought it's worth another try with a 'clean run' this time.

Articles in which this image appears

The Arts Centre (Melbourne)
Culture of Australia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator -- jjron ( talk) 12:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- It's beautiful, but it's crooked. Maybe not a lot, but enough so that it jumps out and it's the first thing I notice. I think it should be gently rotated so that the Spire is perfectly vertical in the picture. Also, lose those trespassing clouds on the right. JBarta ( talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) -- I took the liberty of making these minor changes and uploading over the original (I really hate having various edits scattered around.) I understand some would prefer separate edits, but I thought in this case it would be ok, plus the changes don't affect any of the others' criticisms thus far. JBarta ( talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW the 'edit' botched the image quality, making it soft and rather blurry. I've reverted back to my version (rather ironic that you degrade the quality with an edit, then oppose for that reason). -- jjron ( talk) 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose, it's great resolution and lighting and all that, but I really don't like the composition. The building is already pretty unbalanced (which is fine!), but all the other stuff happening in the bottom 3rd of the image (tree, sculpture, flags, etc) really emphasises this and makes it look awkward. Aaadddaaammm ( talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • In all fairness to the photgrapher, I would be curious to hear how you might take this picture differently so as to address your concerns. Seems to me that if you're going to snap a picture of a building, you also get everything else that is normally in the shot. JBarta ( talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not claiming I could take a better photo, I'm judging this photo here which is what this little corner of wikipedia is for. But there are a lot of angles you can take a photo from (a half-sphere has 64800 degrees...). A quick google image search shows that aerial shots have promise [1], and that there are possibilities to get a much cleaner foreground [2] from ground level. Aaadddaaammm ( talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Even if it's the best we can get that doesn't mean it should be featured. If the best we can get isn't upto standard then we don't feature it. JFitch (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose As mentioned above a lot of distraction, overall composition isn't aesthetically appealing, I don't feel it's upto standard. JFitch (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose -- It's a beautiful image without a doubt. And I don't share the criticisms concerning "composition". Personally, I think it's wonderful. However.... looking at it closer I think it's a somewhat flawed image from a technical point of view. First, it's been visibly sharpened. This is especially noticable as halos around some of the people in the image. Second, it appears to have been taken with an average quality camera as the detail is not very crisp. It's about the same quality that my camera phone takes. Bottom line, it's a beautiful image and perfect for the article, but I just don't think it's an outstanding image worthy of Featured Picture status. JBarta ( talk) 05:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You must have one hell of a camera phone. This is taken with a Canon EOS 7D with a $1500 L series lens, and stitched together from four originals to top it off. And, no it's not 'visibly sharpened' - it's simply sharp, ummm, because it's taken with a high quality camera with a high quality lens in good light, and for several other reasons to do with how it was taken. It's worth understanding the difference if you want to comment here. -- jjron ( talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support As last time. JJ Harrison ( talk) 11:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Not Promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply