Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Litoměřice
Cathedral of St. Stephen
- Reason
- Great quality photo that illustrates its article very well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Litoměřice, Czech Republic
- Creator
- User:Karelj
- Support as nominator --CPacker (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support It's a little bothersome that the subject isn't a more prominent part of the shot, epseically given the volume of information elsewhere in the image... but still nice. SingCal 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is awkward. Sharpness and clarity are fairly minimal for a complex landscape such as this. There are also some coma and aberrations on highlighted surfaces. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - great picture, beutiful background, very clear, subject is prominent, but doesn't overshadow the rest. very good. --Nelro (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I found myself wondering if the town in the foreground is part of the cathedral or just happened to be in the picture. While good quality, I don't feel the cathedral is prominent enough in this picture to make it an FP. Clegs (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd just like to point out that the image is currently being used as the lead picture in an article about the town the cathedral is in, not the cathedral itself. Guest9999 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support original. It's unfortunate that the hills in the background give little hint of whether the horizon is correct, but I can't find any other complaint (Guest9999 made a valuable comment, btw). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I feel the tower is tilted counterclockwise. Laitche (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Edit 1. I believe it adequately illustrates the town in the article it currently resides (not the Cathedral). By the way, I uploaded an edit which I rotated in an effort to fix the tilt (I might not have done it enough, but it is slightly better). NauticaShades 00:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think your tilt 'correction' has gone the wrong way. You've rotated counterclockwise; if there was any tilt in the original (and I'm not convinced there was, if so it's certainly minor), it was already a CCW tilt, so the edit's made the tilt worse. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then I must have eye problems, because the original tilt certainly looked counter clockwise to me. I took another look at the original, and it still looks that way to me. Could my monitor be titled? NauticaShades 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, maybe mine is :-). Laitche's comment seems to indicate he thinks it originally had a CCW tilt also, and given I think you've done a CCW rotation, that would make it worse. Even in the thumbnails the edit looks tilted to me, but the original looks fine. I think the big white and pink buildings are probably more useful for this observation than the tower itself, I must say if I just look at the tower I get a slightly different impression. --jjron (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then I must have eye problems, because the original tilt certainly looked counter clockwise to me. I took another look at the original, and it still looks that way to me. Could my monitor be titled? NauticaShades 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think your tilt 'correction' has gone the wrong way. You've rotated counterclockwise; if there was any tilt in the original (and I'm not convinced there was, if so it's certainly minor), it was already a CCW tilt, so the edit's made the tilt worse. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 08:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)