Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Beacon Staunton Country Park.JPG-2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Beacon-2[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:42:49 (UTC)

Original - A folly in Staunton Country Park built in 1830 in the style of an ionic temple to a design by Lewis Vulliamy. It is largely built with material from the demolished Purbrook house. It features a hole in a roof designed to allow a flagpole to be placed there.
Reason
Previous nomination didn't get any votes. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance (well at least that is what the image histogram strongly suggests). It meets the pixel criteria. Its probably the most photogenic of what's left of Sir George Staunton's work in Staunton Country Park (The Shell House is heavily shaded and damaged, the Chinese bridge has been reduced to it's bare structure and the lake has been altered). It adds value to the article in that it shows the structure and gives some idea of what the park would have been like before William Henry Stone got his hands on it and the trees became somewhat overgrown. The only editing done is a slight rotation and crop.
Articles in which this image appears
Staunton Country Park,Lewis Vulliamy,Sir George Staunton, 2nd Baronet,Folly
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Geni
  • Support as nominator --©Geni 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
vertical version
  • Comment I'm not crazy about the composition. To me, it would be more pleasing as a 4:3 vertical crop. That would also leave enough vegetation in the frame to give just as much context to the image. Jujutacular talk 04:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a 3:4 crop would look better. Also, does anyone think that the picture could do with a small amount of anti-clockwise rotation? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried photographing it verticaly it didn't look as good. I think the pic is straight and any aparently non straitness is an optical illusion due to the ground not being flat.©Geni 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that sounds like a reasonable explanation with regards to the straightness. I prefer the original version to the alternative -- but why not crop the original in the portrait format? The quality is good enough that the picture can take a substantial crop and still be of decent resolution. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm having computer issues so I'm not going to be able to get the to the original file to crop it verticaly before this evening.©Geni 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
alt1vertical crop

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)