Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shivta

Shivta[edit]

Reason: Beautiful encyclopedic picture in high quality. It is hard to take a picture in Shivta without picturing the shadows.
Articles this image appears in: Shivta, Nabataeans
Creator: ST (here or here)
Nominator: Tomer T

Support — Tomer T 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad lighting (overexposure and harsh shadows). Should be taken at another time of the day. Alvesgaspar 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By arbitrary I meant that the way the photo is taken does not depict the site in a unique way (or show its unique features) that makes it distinguishable from other ruins of an ancient civilizations. I did not intend to belittle the subject itself at all. --Dschwen 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm seeing artifact around where the building turns into the sky... and what Schwen said. gren グレン 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose- Anyone can find a pic like this on the internetPenubag 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
- Thats easy to say, but I think we give should the contributor some appreciation for uploading the picture under a free license... --Dschwen 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a picture that was pictured by a Wikipedian Tomer T 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not concerned about shadows, which would be hard to get rid of without artificial lights (bleh) or if the sun was directly behind the subject, and that might not be possible based on positioning of the subject and lends itself to overexposure, which I see none of here. (That long and still a fragment! My English teachers would be proud.) But the view does not lend itself to showing the layout of the whole site (where am I?), and the focus, while good, could be better. This may be due to the camera itself.--Here T oHelp 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support I agree the shadows are well proportioned in this picture and I can't complain about the quality or resolution in any reasonable way. Also, I love the fact that it depicts a little-known yet immensely important ancient historical site. Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Nelro 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artifacts all over the place. The shadows look interesting, but overall this image is just not that striking to me. The lower third looks too bright. Not really Wikipedia's best work. -Wutschwlllm 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]