Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Standardville General Store

Standardville General Store

Reason: It is a very good image of the general store in Standardville, Utah.
Articles in which this image appears: Standardville, Utah
Creator: The Utahraptor

Support as nominator --The Utahraptor (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition isn't very compelling, and it's not very sharp. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific? That is, how is it not compelling? The Utahraptor (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tree blocking the view is quite distracting. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Yes, it would have been better, if the tree were not on the way, but still it is a natural landscape.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jujutacular. Encyclopedic, but could be reshot from a better angle under better lighting conditions. Durova⁴¹² 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support As mentioned before, the photo is nice and encyclopedic but it's not leveld. Taking another shot from different angel may make it featured.--Gilisa (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Unappealing composition and angle; I think this could have been better captured, perhaps from a higher position, showing more of the surrounding landscape, or at least not from a low vantage point that "looks up" at a one-story building.
talk 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This wasn't looking up. This was taken on relatively flat terrain. And I say relatively because it was taken in the mountains. The Utahraptor (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only very slight, I know, but for me it helps to make the composition uncomfortable. You can see that you were standing on a very gentle slope away from the building; I'd expect an average-height man at the same level as the building to get a different result. It's not the reason I'm opposing, though, I was just mentioning it as a minor side thing (because I'm verbose, perhaps); the tree, awkward angles, and tilt are the main points for me.
talk 12:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Taken at a better angle, this photo would be much better. Plus, as stated earlier, there's the issue with the tree on the right hand side. BlackCowboy9 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per tree... Surely a couple of steps to the ~~right~~ left and that would be out of the way... Oh and btw BlackCowboy9 - surely what you've written is an oppose?! Comment is for providing fact or asking questions... that sounds like an oppose to me... Gazhiley (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your other right? Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes - well spotted! Gazhiley (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What's interesting and encyclopedic is that the town is a ghost town. A single dilapidated building doesn't really capture that, as you could find such buildings in many places (just go to Detroit). You've added a number of good pictures to the article but they don't stand out as FPs. If it's possible, I think a wide view, or panorama, showing many buildings, giving you a sense that there was a community in these ruins, would have more potential. But it's not always possible to get such an angle. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you can find completely deserted buildings in Detroit completely surrounded not by a city, but by nature? I don't think so. The Utahraptor (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]