Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Westminster abbey west.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Westminster Abbey west
An excellent photograph, which captures both the building and the sky well, and also illustrates its article, in addition to being one of the world's foremost examples of Gothic Revival architecture; it appears in Westminster Abbey, and was created by ChrisO.
- Nominate and support. - Jdhowens90 20:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It is cut off at the top and the bottom, there must be better pics of Westminster Abbey to nominate.
- Comment: To my mind, it is not necessary for the entire tower to be included in the picture. What matters, and makes this picture special, is its capturing of the stunning architecture from a dynamic angle, giving a genuine impression of the awesome scale of the building, and the detail of the Gothic Revival towers.
- Comment. Users may want to consider this past nomination. Enochlau 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I've seen better photos. JoJan 20:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - I realise a photographer might be frustrated waiting for British weather to provide anything better than this flat grey lighting under a brooding grey sky, but even if you forgive that, this image is just too small. Sorry ~ Veledan • Talk + new 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I too feel there must be better photos of such an incredible building. I consider the angle haphazard, not "dynamic," and the frame very limiting. CapeCodEph 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too small and an uncomfortably high amount of the building is cut off chowells 06:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1. Size. 2. Cut off at bottom and more importantly, top. When taking pictures of soaring, vertically- imposing architecture, cutting off the peak seriously damages the composition, methinks.—encephalon 04:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I feel you're over-reacting a little about the top being cut off. I mean, it's just one of those little spire things, a very minor part of the structure I would think, and it's still half there anyway. Another five identical spires are also visable. It would be different if the entire left hand side tower was cut off, then I would agree with you, but as it is I don't honestly understand your reaction. However, I'll still have to oppose, as the image doesn't really grab me, and it's a little small. Raven4x4x 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, Raven, but I don't agree. This is my first ever oppose vote on FPC, and the cut-offs at both ends impact it a lot for me. The spire that was cut is the highest and most prominent one from this angel. Pictures of architecture should never cut off a piece of it in this manner. When you consider that this could have been so easily remedied, it's apparent that this wasn't a well-executed shot, and is not a good FP candidate. IMO, only moving to oppose if the entire left side was cut off is setting exceptionally low standards for FP. I agree with your thoughts on size.—encephalon 10:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Too bad this might be too late support Richardkselby 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
