Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pulkovo airport

Pulkovo Airport

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2011 at 06:05:41 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent encyclopedic illustration of the subject, good technical quality
Articles in which this image appears: Pulkovo Airport, Saint Petersburg
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Others
Creator: Dmitry Avdeev, duzik@mail.ru

Support as nominator --Pine^talk 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution is not very high. The airport itself is not very sharp at all, probably due to the resolution rather than focus. I don't think the composition is great - the tower obscures the terminal, and the signboards behind are distracting. The caption doesn't say which bit of the airport it is. All in all, I think it's a pretty long way from meeting the criteria. Polequant (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The resolution meets the critera. Airport looks plenty clear on my monitor. I don't think there's any way to get a clearer shot of the airport from this direction because of the tower placement, and the tower obscures nothing of significance. I spent considerable time on Wikipedia looking for a better photo of an airport and this is clearly the best of the ones that I found, the other images may be larger but they're often blurry and/or show only a small section of the airport like the front facade. This is photo meets EV criteria, it's not blurry, it gives a good wide view of the airport, and IMO meets all 8 FP criteria. Regarding the signboards, this is a photo of a working airport and signboards are placed at working airports, I don't see what the problem would be with those any more I would see how having a photo of Times Square with advertising signboards would be a problem, the signs are what are really there not what someone might wish would be there. FPs are much more about EV than aesthetics, and the FP criteria says specifically, "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." Pine^talk 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the resolution didn't meet the criteria, just that it wasn't very high, and that is an issue when there is so much in the picture - this means you can't make out the details. I think the composition is poor because it doesn't show any one aspect of the airport particularly well. It is a reasonable overview but I don't think good enough to meet fp standards. Polequant (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's nothing wrong with this picture per se, but it just doesn't have any "wow" factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]