Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Felucca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Felucca[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 18:14:20 (UTC)

OriginalFelucca on the Nile at Luxor, Egypt
Reason
High quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Felucca
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator
MJJR
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough subject given all the sky and water in the image, but I feel it's a little underexposed. Chick Bowen 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose having the sun directly overhead, or shooting this from a different angle, might give better lighting and EV. --Pine 09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on the EV point? I think we can see all the details, or at least all the major details, of the ship. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an angle from above or more to the side of the ship would give a better view of the features of the ship and its proportions. --Pine 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I like it, but it's not really wowing me technically or compositionally. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose This is a good quality photo with solid EV, but I agree that a more side-on angle would have been much superior and the exposure does seem a bit off. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - having considered this, I think the view would be improved by being from the side, but not by much. I'm not sure about "much" superior, but a bit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The slight underexposure is not a big issue, the angle of the boat is a bigger but not huge issue, both together make me have to oppose this. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]