Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Château de Chambord

Château de Chambord
Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 13:41:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:Image is very large (5,530 × 3,456) and of high quality, of one of France's most famous château. High encyclopaedic value, and whilst a tighter crop than another FP of the same subject, it's sharper and of higher resolution.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Château de Chambord
 * FP category for this image:Architecture
 * Creator:Matthew Badger - bad_germ


 * Support as nominator --Bad germ (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is this adding to the article? It seems entirely redundant to the other image. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd considered adding it to the gallery, but I really do think it's superior to the panorama. bad_germ 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Josh, the thing has a moat, or a channel or something. Gut Monk (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The light is nicer than the existing FP, but the resolution is actually only marginally better. This version is not very sharp and basically no more architectural details can be seen than in the existing FP. So sharper and of higher resolution is over-selling it quite a bit. --Dschwen 13:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted it's not much higher resolution but the artefacting of the original, especially in the roofline, appears rather greater to me. bad_germ 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The FP star is on the wrong version. This got promoted, this carries the star. To make matters more confusing, the page name was subsequently changed which masked the problem. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Fancy, but what's the equipment in the foreground by the moat (is that a moat? River?) -- I'ḏ ♥  One  03:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an artificial channel off the River Cosson, which effectively serves as a moat (but it doesn't go all the way around). You can see it pretty clearly on Google. Chick Bowen 01:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, as Chick says, it's a channel from a river formed into a moat; I don't know what the stuff on the other side is, but suspect it to be fireworks related as they have a fireworks show every week. bad_germ 07:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Oppose Make a subheading that Chambord has a moat (or whatever), because per Milburn, the picture doesn't add much otherwise. Also, can you readily take another picture? Gut Monk (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not; back in (the somewhat less stunning) Birmingham. bad_germ 07:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rats, its a good picture, better I would argue because it shows the moat, but per Milburn, I think that the other shouldn't be bumped out. Gut Monk (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is why I was asking whether you can retake it. The other has three things going for it.  First, it's sharper (but this is a function of time of day, year, and amount of sunlight/clouds; not camera.)  Second, the color in the current FP is bolder; the house looks great, but would you look at how lush that grass looks?!  Lastly, there are people in the other FP, and I think that adds a lot.  Cheers if you get another picture. Gut Monk (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The moat/channel is interesting, but I am not convinced that this is the best image to illustrate it. Unless we are going to claim that this one should replace the other FP, I don't think we really have a leg to stand on, EV-wise. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I actually far prefer this by far to the muddy-coloured view of the other FP. This shows the house, clearly and crisply. The other shows... the lush grass. Lighting matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I would argue the former. The lush grass, while a photographic trick, makes the image eye-catching. See my above critique? Gut Monk (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not worth obscuring the main subject of the image to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I also really prefer this picture over the other because of lighting, also composition and the lack of people distracting from the shot. JFitch   (talk)  19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I whole heartedly disagree. I find the people non-distracting, and, I argue, they add a sense of vitality to the castle (like it's not an abandoned monument). Gut Monk (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is of the chateau, not of an event there so the people are simply a distraction. It's understood that there would be people there, but as a best representation of the chateau, it should be without distractions. JFitch   (talk)  09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The image has been moved down to the gallery, and that about sums up my issue here- it's not showing anything not already shown. I'd imagine that if someone went to work on the article, the gallery'd be the first thing to go. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)