Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kennedys hut: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 15: Line 15:
*'''Oppose''' doesn't grab the attention. --[[User:BillC|BillC]] 10:16, 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)
*'''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)
{{breakafterimages}}

Revision as of 16:34, 6 April 2006

Kennedy's Hut
Fortunately I took this pic as an exposure bracket

Other version are availible here. (I kinda like the sepia effects)

That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --Fir0002 www 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral for now. the large tree is distracting. pschemp | talk 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
You got it the second time :-) --Fir0002 www 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose very messy Leidiot 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't grab the attention. --BillC 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]