Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rio de Janeiro - Cristo Redentor 01.jpg

File:Rio de Janeiro - Cristo Redentor 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2019 at 12:37:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and Memorials
Info created by Paul Landowski - uploaded by Arturdiasr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light, sky and composition is so special that it deserves a star. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's so special about the composition? --El Grafo (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @El Grafo: It is one of the most characteristic Art Deco works and one of the most recognizable statues in the world, but if this art style does not impress you, I still respect. Nice to see you again, by the way. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the composition of this photograph of said statue, which seems to be pretty the default shot everybody takes … --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose low detail – Lucas 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: So, by logic, I do not understand the reason for the existence of Commons:Quality images, because it was promoted by PumpkinSky, edited by Basotxerri and praised by Ikan Kekek, but when it is nominated for Commons:Featured pictures, it gets a "low detail". Very weird. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has different standards for the quality required for FP and being QI certainly doesn't raise it above all possible technical criticism. Ikan didn't write it would be a good FP. The statue looks like a wax figure here, without even zooming all the way in. – Lucas 14:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone has different standards for the quality required for FP”: No, we have not.

"[…] being QI certainly doesn't raise it above all possible technical criticism”. Oops! So I think there is a critical problem about the criteria for promoting quality images.

P.S.: Ikan Kekek considers this one an QI, so he/she automatically thinks this one does not have "low detail". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A photo can be a very good QI without being an FP. This does look better to me than all the other photos linked by El Grafo, though. I will deliberate, but I do think it's very justly a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate support Personally I think the detail is enough for FP, and the other images that El Grafo links to are either lower resolution, under less interesting light, or not perfectly centred (as this one is, more-or-less). Based on a quick search of the category for this statue I can't see any better image on Commons for this iconic subject. This isn't to say a better image isn't possible, because it clearly is - but we can always delist it later if something stronger comes along. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The level detail is not great and I don't like the cropping off on the bottom of the statue. Charles (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose this version. Compare original. Someone has cloned out the metal on his chest, and a highlight on the arm. The global noise reduction has eliminated stone texture. Perhaps one of our Photoshop experts could do a better job with the original, though I think it would be polite to at least ask the photographer (who may not be active but probably has email due to WLM). I wish people would respect other people's photos -- Commons is a repository, not a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia. I agree this is one of the better photos of the statue, despite the obvious composition, the sky and the direction-of-light is good. -- Colin (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be a job for Poco a poco, but by all accounts, he will be inactive for a long time to come. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - More like User:Wilfredor. (I don't know why you think Poco is inactive.) -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not inactive, I just have to wait for 8 months until the extreme weather and the cold is over to go out and take pictures. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive noise reduction and the bottom is cropped off -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The bottom has a rather ugly plinth, so this crop is a reasonable option imo. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality apart, this kind of composition is far better in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one can get a get a shot like that one unless you are in a helicopter. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A helicopter or a drone would be better, maybe. And from the ground, just take the picture with the plinth, so the statue will appear less sectioned -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Light seems harsh to me and the background is just interesting enough to be distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bottom cut (maybe because there are allways people there)--Wilfredor (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cropping -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Piotr Bart (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom crop isn't very nice--BoothSift 06:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]