Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/archives

archives[edit]

Add your reasons for nominating it here;

Just thought this is a picture that would make someone want to learn more.

say what article it appears in, and who created the image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration Kelvin Kay

Nominate and support. - Kkmd 04:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image does appear to be slightly tilted to the left to the plain eye... it's slightly unappealing, but fixable. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a picture gallery would not allow a lighting which makes all pictures orange? - Adrian Pingstone 07:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low resolution, bad colour balance, poor framing. Is tilted and could be corrected but it just isn't really worth it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and it would probably come out something like Edit 1. Which is, of course, even further under size. (And is it still tilted? I can't decide what to use as my tilt metric - the floor? The pillars? The plaque? Is this better?) What's really needed is to move the photographer a few yards to the right.... - TSP 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Diliff --Fir0002 11:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not the best pic and even though edit 1 is much better its just not big enough--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A panorama would probably be better for such a scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 21:01
Oppose but only for the framing/lack of panorama. The location is very dimly lit and the original better reflects this than edit 1. While trying to compose the same shot myself I was extremely annoyed at some yahoo with a point and drool camera with auto flash firing. So were the guards.--J Clear 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting shot- pictures are cut off, backs of people are unphotogenic, and it seems to me that there is a tilt. I suppose only a panoramic shot would be interesting enough to become featured. Sudachi 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Froggydarb 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]