Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greenwich foot tunnel

Greenwich foot tunnel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2013 at 07:57:53 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, good lighting, good qaulity
Articles in which this image appears: Greenwich foot tunnel
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Heuschrecke

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support the composition is quite good and provides context for the photo (with the river behind it). It depicts clearly the structure in typical British weather. However, the blurry seagull in mid flight is quite annoying. dllu (t,c) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose due to the blurry seagull and blurry people in the entrance. The dome is nice and sharp, but there are other areas of the image that are a tad bit too soft. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because this could be done better; it's a very photogenic building (inside and out) and I'd encourage our London photographers to head down there and see what they can do. Chick Bowen 01:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenge accepted... Not sure what you'd like to have improved over this version though; the composition isn't bad and detail is reasonably good... Even the clouds are dramatic, albeit overcast. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh, a little unsharp, a little dark/low-contrast and brighter in background than foreground, weird-looking person in lavender coat right in front of the entrance who looks like she has something covering or in front of her head, motion-blurred seagull: a lot of small things that add up to, could be better. But I look forward to seeing what you can do with it! Chick Bowen 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I had a go today. I couldn't really replicate the shot as the foreground of the original was fenced off with temporary barriers for no particular reason, so I had to get closer and more to the left to avoid it being in the foreground, as a result, Canary Wharf is much smaller (but this is possibly a good thing if you want to minimise the impact of it). I also didn't get the best lighting as it was a bit late in the afternoon so the doorway was in shadow. Still, it was a nice sunny day, so there's that. :) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle oppose of original, neutral on new one. based on use as an illustration of the subject. It's a pretty photo and appreciate your work to snap it. But it seems mostly like a skyline and not at all clearly a tunnel. Looking at the article, I much prefer the images within the tunnel (a diagram would also be nice). Even as a photo of the entrance, I prefer the other photo in article, that is more tightly cropped on just the same southern entrance beehive.TCO (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the composition of the new one better (good job, man) although the tight one in article is nice too. Article is missing a pic of the north dome (we have three pics of the south one, now).TCO (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]