Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg

House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia
Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2015  at 10:46:17 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's an interesting, high resolution image of a notable building in Riga, showing the unusual shape of the building from an angle.
 * Articles in which this image appears:House of the Blackheads and List of Dutch inventions and discoveries (minor EV)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator – &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Is it possible to have an alt with a crop to remove the tower? The distortion of the angles due to the way it was photographed really irks me - borderline oppose as it looks really odd... I would volunteer to try, but I don't have the skills/systems access to try it myself... gaz hiley  13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the church tower on the left? I do actually have a similar photo taken about 10 minutes later (and so is darker). I guess I'm just used to these kinds of perspective distortions but I can see your point -f you were looking straight at it, you would expect it not lean, but because it's at the edge of the frame, the horizontal lines lean inwards. Anyway, do you prefer the linked image? I have no real issue replacing it in the article. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Alt on the basis that it is used in the article if promoted... I much prefer the composition without the distorted tower... And the colours (now that it's been updated) seem fine to me... In fact, the clock that Sca referred to looks better in the alt than the original to me... gaz hiley  17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Great detail – just look at that (replica) astronomical clock at full res. To me, the church tower provides context, as does the town square, but I could go with either one. Sca (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support original  - The alt is a bit dark and the tone is not fine. The difference is clearly visible. Original is better IMO and hence support.. - The Herald (here I am) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support either as the new alt version is better than the earlier one.. - T H (here I am) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The composition of the original is superior, in my opinion. The question is whether the distortion of the tower is too misleading for an encyclopedic picture. Here the tower clearly appears to have a elliptical cross-section, while other, undistorted pictures show it as circular. 86.186.13.169 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ANY - but prefer ALT as it looks now - just for a day ago a nom failed because there was no consensus on witch image was supported. I am fine with any. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either one - Compositionally, I think the alt is better, but in the original one can see the details of the lower half of the House of Blackheads better. It's worth choosing the original just so the colors around the front entrance are visible. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've reprocessed the alternative image with a brighter exposure that more closely matches the original image. Does anyone have a preference? I'm happy to go with the alternative (and add it to the article) if preferred. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either one - I too think the alt is better, Compositionally as per CorinneSD. talk→   WPPilot   03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Very nice.Jobas (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently both images have the same number of support, and therefore it would be nice, if you could indicate which version you like better. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the alt is more popular. The Herald said he preferred the original because the alt was too dark, but since then I have uploaded a new version which I think corrects this fault. I'm happy to support the alt. Will need to replace it in the article if we do go with the alt though. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that decide it? Sca (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. I already thought Diliff was supporting both. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if it makes any diff, I'll go with orig. Sca (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT it is more well balanced without the tower in the shot, both are wonderful and well done. I would rather have the original on my wall and the Alt on the page :)  talk→   WPPilot   23:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a rough consensus that the alt should be promoted. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)