Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa)-2 new.jpg

Mount Rushmore

Reason: EV is high for both articles, image has been improved since its previous nomination. Original image is here, previously nominated image is here.
Articles this image appears in: Mount Rushmore
Creator: Dean Franklin

Support as nominator --Cowtowner 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Awesome image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Good enough until a better one comes by. Also a nice touch to feature the lead image in a featured article (not that that affects my !vote). upstate NYer 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really not sure about this one. Noise in the sky and blurry foreground; we have an existing FP of the subject, and probably several in the past. In terms of TFP, I'm sure this has been featured before, promoting this image may offer little value to the encyclopedia as a whole. Given that it's not really amazing, as UpstateNYer has also acknowledged, I see no strong reason to feature this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (in fact, just check Talk:Mount Rushmore to confirm that it's had oodles of exposure on the front page)[reply]
- Taking it from the top; admittedly, the foreground is not as sharp as the rest of the image, it is also not of the same importance. Noise in the sky, again, same deal for me. Though I'm not sure what TFP is, the fact that it has been perhaps shown on the front page and previous versions have appeared prominitely in project before doesn't strike me as a reason not to feature it. On the topic of the other featured picture, I think it's quite safe to say that the two are distinct images (the currently featured image seems to have it's EV primarily vested in Air Force One). This is especially true in light of the multitude of featured bird and insect pictures which have truly striking similarities 68.147.59.209 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - As a clarification, I am the IP who posted the above, my apologies. Cowtowner 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak support - nice and sharp, great lighting - but would prefer a tighter crop. The rocky outcrop on the very right is particularly distracting because it looks like another face (or am I the only one). I'd take a bit off all four sides Stevage 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The saturation of the sky in the nominated version is 176 - an increase of 25% over the original's 140 - without good reason, since the original saturation looks quite good at the same exposure bump - see uploaded alt. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original: Based on PLW's comments. The oversaturation of the sky is unreasonable, unnecessary, and looks very poor. Maedin\^talk 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit, oppose original I definitely prefer this edit. The first picture had a strong overall contrast that made the monument appear dark, namely throughout Lincoln's face. The edit corrects this nicely. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments on the edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take the alt over the original. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dean_Franklin_-_06.04.03_Mount_Rushmore_Monument_(by-sa)-3_new.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]