Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The quiet and peaceful park, pond, and chapel behind the Potala
Appearance
This is a nice photo of an area behind the Potala in Lhasa, Tibet. It's in the Potala page in the Commons. The photo was taken by Nathan Freitas, and I convinced him to license it under a free Creative Commons license. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (of course) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, nice composition and color. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- It almost looks like a painting - Support - RedWordSmith 00:20, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The color of the water is unpleasant, and the foliage covers up the (quite interesting) building in the background. Also, there's a dude walking right through the middle of the shot, though he is "quiet and peaceful." I like the alliteration, and we need more titles like this. Matthewcieplak 04:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Several reasons, for one I'd like to point to this guidelines for FP's: Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Maybe adding significantly is indeed too much too ask for some FP's that pass here, but I don't think this image illustrates anything well. I do like the shot, but the trees block the view and the focus somewhat dizzies me. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:18, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- This was why I asked if images on the Commons were acceptable. At the time, most people said yes. This picture isn't actually included on Wikipedia at all. I guess we should decide: is that a problem or not? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Of course it should be included in an en article. Where it is stored is of no relevance, but it still needs to illustrate an article. — David Remahl 14:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This was why I asked if images on the Commons were acceptable. At the time, most people said yes. This picture isn't actually included on Wikipedia at all. I guess we should decide: is that a problem or not? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice enough, but another of the non-outstanding holiday snapshots that have been nominated here recently. -- GWO 12:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "holiday snapshots". – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I mean a photograph of a standard approximately equal to the kind of snapshots I take when I'm on my holiday. A useful aide memoire that I've been to a place, but not a great deal of thought gone into exposure, framing, composition, etc. E.g. This [1] or this [2] or this [3] or this [4]. OK, maybe not that last one. -- GWO
- I'm not sure what you mean by "holiday snapshots". – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It isn't really good; and it doesn't illustrate an article. --Thomas G Graf 18:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice photo, but not feature-quality. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:25, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)