Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kennedys hut: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*'''I don't know''' - the washed sky and non-directional light gives a very depressing feeling...but I don't dislike that...but I don't know if I like it either. Why does it look like the bark has exploded off of the surrounding trees?--[[User:Deglr6328|Deglr6328]] 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
*'''I don't know''' - the washed sky and non-directional light gives a very depressing feeling...but I don't dislike that...but I don't know if I like it either. Why does it look like the bark has exploded off of the surrounding trees?--[[User:Deglr6328|Deglr6328]] 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
:That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [http://www.photos.flagstaffotos.com<small style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www</small>] 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
:That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [http://www.photos.flagstaffotos.com<small style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www</small>] 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''neutral for now'''. the large tree is distracting. <small>[[User:Pschemp|< |
*'''neutral for now'''. the large tree is distracting. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<span style="color:green;">psch</span>]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:Pschemp|<span style="color:green;">mp</span>]] | [[User talk:Pschemp|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</small> 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak support''' Looks better in full size. The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - |
*'''Weak support version 2''' Looks better in full size. <s>The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - the hut is deep in shade, and the bright, cloudy sky is behind the trees.</s> Apparently, it's not unavoidable - or is this a clever composite of two bracketed shots? --[[User:Janke|Janke]] | [[User talk:Janke|Talk]] 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
:You got it the second time :-) --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [http://www.photos.flagstaffotos.com<small style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www</small>] 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''The sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --<span style="color: #58738c;">[[User: Antilived|antilived]]</span> <sup><span style="color:#FFC16F;">[[User_talk:Antilived|T]]</span> | [[Special:Contributions/Antilived|C]]</sup> 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''The sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --<span style="color: #58738c;">[[User: Antilived|antilived]]</span> <sup><span style="color:#FFC16F;">[[User_talk:Antilived|T]]</span> | [[Special:Contributions/Antilived|C]]</sup> 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' very messy [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|< |
*'''Oppose''' very messy [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:Leidiot|idi]][[User talk:Leidiot|ot]] 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' doesn't grab the attention. --[[User:BillC|BillC]] 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Neutral'''. I disagree with a lot of the other opposing reasons though. I think the composition is pretty good. Its impossible to have a bush landscape without it looking 'messy', but that doesn't mean messy is a bad thing in this context! Thats how bushland is! I just question the image's significance to viewers as a potential featured picture. To be honest, I don't really know whether that is a valid reason to oppose according to our guidelines, but I think it probably should be a factor, at least. [[User:Diliff|Diliff]] <small>| [[User talk:Diliff|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Diliff|(Contribs)]]</small> 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - it just doesn't have the richness of colour that other featured pictures have; I don't think it's worth including. [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} ~[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{breakafterimages}} |
{{breakafterimages}} |
||
Latest revision as of 15:12, 13 April 2022
Other version are availible here. (I kinda like the sepia effects)
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - good, but not great. Rather bland composition. -- P199 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know - the washed sky and non-directional light gives a very depressing feeling...but I don't dislike that...but I don't know if I like it either. Why does it look like the bark has exploded off of the surrounding trees?--Deglr6328 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --Fir0002 www 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- neutral for now. the large tree is distracting. pschemp | talk 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support version 2 Looks better in full size.
The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - the hut is deep in shade, and the bright, cloudy sky is behind the trees.Apparently, it's not unavoidable - or is this a clever composite of two bracketed shots? --Janke | Talk 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- You got it the second time :-) --Fir0002 www 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- OpposeThe sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --antilived T | C 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose very messy Leidiot 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose doesn't grab the attention. --BillC 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. I disagree with a lot of the other opposing reasons though. I think the composition is pretty good. Its impossible to have a bush landscape without it looking 'messy', but that doesn't mean messy is a bad thing in this context! Thats how bushland is! I just question the image's significance to viewers as a potential featured picture. To be honest, I don't really know whether that is a valid reason to oppose according to our guidelines, but I think it probably should be a factor, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - it just doesn't have the richness of colour that other featured pictures have; I don't think it's worth including. BigBlueFish 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)