Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SCOTUS: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→US Supreme Court Building: +oppose |
→US Supreme Court Building: comment |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Oppose''' I dislike the frame ratio and it is quite dark. [[User:Capital photographer|Capital photographer]] ([[User talk:Capital photographer|talk]]) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' I dislike the frame ratio and it is quite dark. [[User:Capital photographer|Capital photographer]] ([[User talk:Capital photographer|talk]]) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' aspect ratio - feels too cropped left and right. Also it seems like there is a lamp out behind the pillars on camera left. Should be retaken with that working. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User talk:Mfield|talk]]) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' aspect ratio - feels too cropped left and right. Also it seems like there is a lamp out behind the pillars on camera left. Should be retaken with that working. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User talk:Mfield|talk]]) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment''' The lamp comment really irritates me. I think just about any other reason (up to and including something like "it sucks") would have been better than blaming the photographer for illustrating reality. To ask that a photograph look like a movie set flies in the face of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. [[User:Noclip|Noclip]] ([[User talk:Noclip|talk]]) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' The crop annoys me. It's a good photo, but I believe more of the building should be shown. [[User:Crassic|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#cc6600">¢rassic]]! ([[User talk:Crassic|talk]])</span> 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' The crop annoys me. It's a good photo, but I believe more of the building should be shown. [[User:Crassic|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#cc6600">¢rassic]]! ([[User talk:Crassic|talk]])</span> 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
||
Revision as of 00:53, 27 June 2008
- Reason
- Have at it.
- Articles this image appears in
- United States
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator --Noclip (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Opose. It does not illustrate the subject in a particularly compelling way, doesn't make me want to know more. It's too dark, and doesn't stand out as being Wikipedia's best work. An other image from the article it's in would be better suited to be featured.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- User has <10 edits, almost all of which are on FPC all within 1 hr timespan --Fir0002 09:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Huh, what's up with that 'reason' for nominating? Can we get a real reason here that actually makes sense? --jjron (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I dislike the frame ratio and it is quite dark. Capital photographer (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose aspect ratio - feels too cropped left and right. Also it seems like there is a lamp out behind the pillars on camera left. Should be retaken with that working. Mfield (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The lamp comment really irritates me. I think just about any other reason (up to and including something like "it sucks") would have been better than blaming the photographer for illustrating reality. To ask that a photograph look like a movie set flies in the face of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Noclip (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop annoys me. It's a good photo, but I believe more of the building should be shown. ¢rassic! (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)