Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lady Liberty

Lady Liberty[edit]

The Statue of Liberty

Sky cleaned up

The following picture of the Statue of Liberty is okay, but when I saw this, the other image wasn't at all comparable. This image nicely depicts the countanance of Lady Liberty. As for the copyright, the copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification, and it came from here. It was uploaded by Petrusbarbygere, using his/her Wikimedia Commons account, which is also User:Petrusbarbygere.

Nominate and support. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At full resolution, the sky is full of artefacts. I would consider resizing. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 23:56
Weak support due to sky artifacts. Would strongly support a less compressed version. However, I would not re-size the image any smaller - this is the first time I've actually seen the bolt (or rivet) heads on the crown spikes! --Janke | Talk 07:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Only if sky artefacts are cleaned up without reducing resolution on the rest of the image too much. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full support thanks to cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Which would be much fuller with a cleaner sky. Staxringold 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose upon closer inspection. I didn't realize how bad the sky looked, even on the smaller version on the image page. I was willing to support an image that only looked bad at absolute full size, but this one even has a problem at the medium Wiki-viewing size... Staxringold 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Second version. Looks great! Staxringold 19:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sky looks terrible at full size. chowells 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per requests here, I cleaned up the sky - see version 2, difference shows only in full size. --Janke | Talk 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks! Sweet job. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it looks really great, but the torch is cut off, the picture below is more "encyclopedic" but has other issues. This is a commonly photographed monument, can it get better than this? I am torn, I'll see what other have to say. -Ravedave 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm mostly with Ravedave on this one. I like the composition so I'm not too bothered about the cut torch, but still, this is a very frequently photographed subject: I think we can afford to hold out for both detail and more statue. Someone fly Diliff or Fir over ~ Veledan • Talk 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think there's a Featured Statue of Liberty image. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above, it's possible to do much better. Let's wait for the "right" shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Millions of tourists go through NY every year, surely one will take a better photo, and upload it to Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't find it an interesting subject. There are better statues out there. --liquidGhoul 04:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we have to wait for the perfect shot. We can have more than one featured picture of the same object. To me, this is not the very very best picture Wikipedia has, but it is very very good and good enough to be featured. Johntex\^talk 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]