Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Westminster Palace

Westminster Palace[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2012 at 05:51:59 (UTC)

Reason: Has a free license, good resolution, a good view of the architecture, has EV
Articles in which this image appears: Autism Awareness Campaign UK, British Pakistanis, City of Westminster, List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe, List of legislative assembly buildings, Palace of Westminster
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Mgimelfarb

Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant enough at thumbnail (though the boardings along the bridge are distracting). But the limitations of ISO 1000 on a six-year-old camera are really apparent: the quality just isn't there. Even downsampled half size it lacks resolution and range. Colin°^Talk 07:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- on a six-year-old camera - Colin, can you please stop this rhetoric? This is not a camera sales site. Critique the picture, not the camera. Cheers. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't understand this. Perhaps someone who hasn't got it in for me can explain? It is a photograph whose main problem is dreadful noise and the hefty reduction thereof. The reasons for that are as I gave and nothing else: the technological limitations of the hardware. Just as someone might say: the background is distracting due to the smaller aperture or the subject isn't sharp due to the low shutter speed. But Samsara, I note you haven't commented on the picture at all. I'm getting sick of this. Colin°^Talk 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colin, I note that you continue in your ad hominems. It has no place here. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funny that someone who gives valid reasons for opposing gets criticized by another who... doesn't even talk photo here. You have no place here I'd say. - Blieusong (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are prey to the same fallacy. The camera model has nothing to do with it. We generally talk about image quality, and that's the only relevant criterion. WP:WIAFP for your reading if you need a refresher. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The technical quality of the image (WIAFP1) is directly affected by the type of camera one uses. Perhaps Colin should have focused less on the camera technology but his concern's about the image quality ("lacks resolution") are affected by the camera that the photographer used (and he was giving helpful advice on how to improve the issue that he mentioned). Spencer^T♦C 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        May I just point out that only 15 of the 42 words Colin typed were about the camera quality - and even then after the colon he gave the reason why he mentioned the camera... Ie the quality just isn't there... That hardly means he's focused on the camera model! There aren't enough editors on this page as it is, let's not put people off providing their opinions and expertise by attacking them... gazhiley 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        (and for a hugely famous and easily reproduced view such as this, it's reasonable to take camera quality into account as one factor when considering the nomination) Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Image quality, yes. Camera model, no. I'm surprised so many of you aren't getting this. Wikipedia is not a soap box for Colin's bashing of camera models, which he's repeatedly used it for. We're here to critique pictures. Enough is enough. Please stop it, it doesn't belong here. End of debate? Samsara (FA • FP) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A debate? Hardly. Colin is right, the lack of image quality is directly attributible to the camera used in this case. Would I have mentioned this? Probably not because I know how touchy people are about their cameras. Moreover, I see no history of camera elitism from Colin or anyone else for that matter. Samsara is a lovely parfum, but what you did here stinks. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        End of debate, yes, but let me just say this. You may have noticed on numerous occasions that almost everyone has disagreed with you about 'what FPC is'. You regularly come in here and tell us how it should be done, using a rather rude tone. How about you just critique the photo the way you want to, and let others critique it the way they want to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Now let's just recap there. We've established that the comment Colin made above was unnecessary and unhelpful. You then come along and, in an attempt of personal point-scoring, try to lecture on topics that your own record does not bear out. I hope we're done now. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think we've established that at all. Other people would have put it differently because, well, because they are other people. I reviewed the picture, not the camera. I mentioned the cause of the image failure (the ISO choice + camera age) just as someone might mention any other cause of image failure such as shutter speed choice, aperture choice, focal length choice, weather conditions, crop, stitched-image projection, etc, etc. Such comments aren't, if we're being picky about language, actually "necessary" but are utterly harmless. If as the IP says some people are "touchy" about their cameras, well that's their problem and certainly not mine, nor am I going to censor myself to accommodate their problem. Is King of Hearts review an example of tripod elitism perhaps? I'm personally ashamed of my tripod and am reluctant to show it in public. When I asked for an impartial third opinion (which is my right) you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks (as though the mere act of doubting your opinion is offensive).

Where does this "soap box for Colin's bashing of camera models" comment come from? There is no evidence for this in my reviews on Wikipedia or Commons. Such comments are blockably in violation of our no personal attacks policy. If folk have some comment to make to me, or advice, then use my talk page or send me an email. This forum should for reviewing images, and for discussing how to review them without getting personal.

If one cannot make a straightforward review like I did above, without being subject to vitriol, then I can see no merit in me continuing to participate here. Colin°^Talk 09:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of what is placed in a review is "necessary". Just because it is not necessary doesn't mean it is "unhelpful". Noting that the camera was six years old was actually elightening and explained why the settings used resulted in such a poor picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Colin's intention was to say that the high ISO performance of old generation cameras are not as good as that of the new ones. Please leave that topic for our own good (please). JKadavoor Jee 13:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by others already, 'we' did not establish any such things about Colin's comments - only you attempted to do so, and were rejected by everyone else. For the sake of everyone's patience, Samsara, please just judge the photos and keep your opinions on others to yourself. Only then will we be done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noisy (per Colin). And it's likely issue could have been avoided with proper settings (maybe opening a bit more, and longer exposure). - Blieusong (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice lighting, but should have used a tripod. Or, this were shot at 1/50s and f/8, the ISO could have been brought down to 200. Worried about blur? Just hold the shutter down ten times and you're guaranteed to get one that's sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colors but clarity is lacking especially when viewed at 100%. --Pine^✉ 03:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]