Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Radcliffe Camera
.jpg)
I think this would be a suitable Featured Picture because it is a good image of a well known an historical building in Oxford. The image is of high resolution.
- Creator
- Tom Murphy VII
- Comments
- This is quite a nice shot, if a little unsharp at the top, and it has some perspective distortion. Unfortunately there is already a FP of the same building; although I believe the criteria just require it to be among the best, not necessarily the best, work we have, people might object to making two FPs of this building unless they are substantially different. And this shot isn't technically as good as the existing one, IMO. However, your sky is gorgeous, and the ground level perspective is arguably more encyclopedic, as that's what most people would see. Fletcher (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008
- (Fletcher has already said some of this, but I wrote this last night and my internet dropped out before saving, so I'll put it up anyway.) It's pretty good, overall quality seems reasonable, maybe a little softer than usually favoured at FPC (especially at the top). I can however see some compositional issues that could be a problem. It appears to have a bit of a tilt to the right (fixable) and could do with some perspective correction (also fixable). On composition, I don't like that big building that pokes out at the right; I don't know the location, but it looks like if the photographer could have centred on the doorway that's currently to the left of centre, it would have made a happier composition and possibly obscured that big building. There's also an unfortunate big shadow from another building falling across front and centre of this photo, along with some other harsh shadows, which should have been avoidable by shooting at a slightly different time. The fence being cutoff at the bottom just looks a little awkward. The first two things are fixable with a good edit, the last three only with a reshoot. I'm not sure how significant the 'unfixables' would be at FPC, but combined they may be a problem. --jjron (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- Link to the nomination of the existing FP for comparison, which funnily enough is also tilted (it's not the building that's tilted is it?), and for whatever reason is not in the article on the place. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I put the FP back on Radcliffe Camera (but didn't remove the subject picture). And that's a good point -- for a 250 year old building, I would be a little surprised if it's perfectly level. Fletcher (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Link to the nomination of the existing FP for comparison, which funnily enough is also tilted (it's not the building that's tilted is it?), and for whatever reason is not in the article on the place. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder