Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration

Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration in Perm[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 21:59:07 (UTC)

Reason: Great quality, good EV, important for the city Perm. Shot by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky in 1910.
Articles in which this image appears: Perm, Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: D V S

Oppose all per below-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice content, but colors are washed out too much. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's only used in galleries. The EV is questionable at best, and I see no reason why a stronger modern shot would not be preferable. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a stronger modern shot would not be preferable because the place now looks much worse [1]. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe this would pass if it was a modern shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the image does have some EV on historical grounds, it is neither particularly eye-catching nor does it have very good image quality. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose alternates -- they look overcooked, are hard on the eyes, and lose significant detail in the shadow area. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The alternates by GreatOrangePumpkin have been removed, and it would seem very strange for me to strongly oppose my own edit :P Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made my own retouched version, as a proof of concept of what retouching, in my opinion, should be like. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note some of the alts have sloppy sourcing/author info, or lack it entirely. Please be careful, and please take those details seriously. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that the sloppy alts have been removed and the remaining one that I made has correct sourcing/author info as far as I know. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose all Not FP quality. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]