Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Stafford station

Stafford railway station and British Rail Class 350[edit]

**Original** - A British Rail Class 350 in London Midland livery pulled into Stafford railway station.

**Alternative**-Stafford railway station.

**Alternative**-Stafford railway station looking south.

**Alternative** -A London Midland run British Rail Class 350 pulled into Stafford railway station. This train is headed towards Crewe railway station.

It shows a beautiful shot of Stafford railway station with a British Rail Class 350, operated by London Midland, pulled in. The alternative show a shot of Stafford railway station without the British Rail Class 350.

Articles this image appears in: Stafford railway station.

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 07:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

With the subject being the station, we really don't see enough of it. Too narrow a field of view - could be pretty much anywhere. You'd need to get an aerial shot or panorama I think to have any chance at FPC/VPC. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see the sign on the small wagon that reads Welcome to Stafford station. Additionally I have another two version of this station without the train and one looking south. Check out my gallery. Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that this is where you say it is, and it may add to the article quite reasonably, but in terms of FPC there's just not enough there. To put it in simple terms, I could go out to my local major city and reproduce about a hundred shots of similar views and better quality in a day. So for something so common it needs something special, some 'wow', to have a chance at FPC - a small wagon that says Welcome to Stafford station that you really can't even read is not a wow. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the composition there are lots of technical problems with the image, the sky is overexposed and there is a lot of motion blur or soft parts of the image --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest these alternative picture. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alts basically have similar issues. Overexposed skies, blurriness, generally poor quality (the fourth one for example is terribly blurred). If I'm not mistaken these are taken with a mobile phone camera? Sorry, but unless you're photographing aliens landing at Buckingham Palace, you aren't going to be getting an FP using that. FWIW I think the third one is the most engaging and best overall if you're looking for one to use in the article. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder