Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cobh waterfront

Cobh waterfront


Image by J. Pollock from Wikipedia Commons


 * Nominate and support. - Tolivero 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is a great shot. The colors of the buildings are beautiful and I like the way it is portrayed horizontally. Great job! Christine
 * Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

fpwannabe
 * Weak Oppose. Its not bad, but the resolution isn't all that it could be (yes, it is more than 1000px wide, but its ratio means that it is not very tall or detailed). I get the feeling that it probably isn't the best composition or view, but this is just the impression I get, I have no idea what limitations there are. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. There are two specks in the sky that could either be birds or dust/dirt. Because of the ambiguity they should probably be cloned out, whatever they are.  I would be willing to support this if the resolution/sharpness were higher.  There's so much detail lost at this resolution. -- moondigger 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose composition really isn't great. There is apparently a river or canal (bay?) in the foreground which has been left out of shot, there are buildings on the right which aren't doing anything, the mast of the boat to the left is distracting (you can't see the whole boat), and the focus of the image isn't clear. Are we looking at the church or the row of houses? If the latter, it's a pity they're half obscured behind a railing, cars and trees. IMHO this photo would be much better if cropped at the bright blue house on the left, at the red house on the left, and with some water showing at the front, so we could understand the view these houses have. Stevage 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, it is somewhat unclear of what the viewers are viewing, but I think it is a great shot. Unique and colorful-
 * Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Bright and colourful, illustrates Cobh well. I believe that this photo is looking out over a small marina or shipping basin (not canal or river, notice the slip way to the right) at the Cobh waterfront, a sleepy fishing community, which I expect is getting more and more dominated by tourism. Great pic -Aled D 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Not bad, but 430 odd pixels high is insufficient res --Fir0002 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that just a personal feeling? We only set a minimum for the longer side of the image, and this one is wider than 1000px - the 430 is not technically in breach of that restriction. Stevage 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mainly a personal feeling, but I think with panoramas the 1000px restriction doesn't apply. I personally think that the restriction should not be in terms of pixels wide but megapixels. As despite having 1400 pixels of width, the picture is only 0.6 megapixels. --Fir0002 11:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I love detailed panoramas, but this lacks something (and it is not sky... ;-) Also, some of the buildings are leaning significantly - even the church. --Janke | Talk 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great looking photo! 134.153.36.181 12:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a waterfront, right? Where's the water? Subject is very good, but this would be much better if there were a better balance between the sky and the water. And if it were bigger, as I'd like to zoom in on those houses. I don't know about the technical issues here, but isn't it possible to have a straight horizon instead of a curved one? The spire is indeed about to tumble down. &mdash; Vildricianus 14:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Where is the high-res version? I'd really like to see that.  -- Cyde↔Weys  01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

--Fir0002 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)