Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Machu Picchu Peru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Machu Picchu,Peru

Original - Machu Picchu is a pre-Columbian Inca site located 2,400 meters above sea level. It is situated on a mountain ridge above the Urubamba Valley in Peru, which is 80 km northwest of Cusco. Often referred to as The Lost City of the Incas.
Original - Machu Picchu is a pre-Columbian Inca site located 2,400 meters above sea level. It is situated on a mountain ridge above the Urubamba Valley in Peru, which is 80 km northwest of Cusco. Often referred to as The Lost City of the Incas.
Current FP - not for voting
Current FP - not for voting
Reason
encyclopedic, goodquality, should be featured
Articles this image appears in
click here
Creator
Allard Schmidt
  • i am nominating other version (sunset version). though picture by the same author is labeled as a sunset as well as sunrise. Let the picture for reconsideration. Alokprasad84 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is an existing Machu Picchu FP and I've added it to the side for reference. For that matter it may even be worth nominating it for delisting as it is a bit awkward and low quality by current standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice image. Also a lot better than other image User:Diliff attached ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support A few artifacts from noise reduction but other than that a very nice image. I'd say keep the current FP though - it's a welcome change from the 'standard' view of the site. Time3000 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Crisp and lifelike, better than current FP, high quality Capital photographer (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It might be taken at a nice angle, but the sky is blown and it's very grainy. NauticaShades 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yeah, not a bad photo but not FP standards either I don't think. Its one of those places I'd love to visit sometime and hopefully do the scene justice. I've heard it is quite often completely covered in fog though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Overexposed sky is very distracting. Muhammad(talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -Per Alokprasad84 Nelro (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good picture, but there are too many quality issues. Clegs (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good picture, but its got focus, and depth of field issues. It looks like it has been taken with autofocus, and shake filtering. --Amckern (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Low quality, imo. It's a decent photo, but not FP. ¢rassic! (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Great picture. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let down by full size - haloes and overly sharp edges, seems to have been subject to some kind of filter, and I don't agree with the results, or vice versa. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Granted, I don't have the world's most photographic eye, but I didn't see to many quality issues (graininess? where?). Obviously the blown sky is an issue, but the actual subject is so well captured that I almost didn't notice. SingCal 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the sky is overexposed and this shot should a wider angle or a panorama to fully illustrate the setting Thisglad (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)