Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fountains Abbey

Fountains Abbey

 * Reason:well-composed, high enc. panorama depicting Fountains Abbey
 * Proposed caption:Located in North Yorkshire, England, Fountains Abbey is a ruined Cistercian monastery built in 1132 C. E. and operating until 1539, when Henry VIII ordered the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
 * Articles this image appears in:Fountains Abbey
 * Creator:Klaus with a K

Oppose Compares very poorly with our other architectural FP's in terms of sharpness and image quality. Full res is also quite noisy, particularly in the edits. I would urge all the above supports to view it at full res because I think the quality is very poor for a building shot (which should be as high quality as possible because it can be retaken with relative ease). Also I think this perspective is quite misleading because I'm assuming that the entire abbey face is straight whereas in this picture it looks like its curving quite strongly. I also suspect that the face of the little shack on the RHS is parallel with the face of the abbey, yet in the pano it's at a distinct angle with the LHS side face (which I assume is perpendicular to the photographer). --Fir0002 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Malachirality 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- can someone help with the caption? --Malachirality 05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I like it, but can you do anything about the deep shade on the right? --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a simple fix; I made an edit, but this computer's not letting me upload anything. Hopefully by tomorrow I can upload it. thegreen J      Are you green?  01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, edit up. thegreen J      Are you green?  21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice! SECisek 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 thegreen J      Are you green?  21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * not supporting- it is too bright to take natural--Bhzd 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we interpret this to be an oppose? SingCal 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Although you're right, the caption could do with some work... I'd help but I don't know a huge amount about the subject. SingCal 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1--Mbz1 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Bhzd; the edit is too bright. The shadows could do with being lifted on the original, but it needs to be done more selectively. --jjron 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is edit 2 OK, or is it still overdone? thegreen J      Are you green?  23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 looks significantly better, but Fir0002 raises some more serious issues. --jjron 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This aerial shot bears out some of what Fir002 is saying about the building layouts. The main abbey face should be straight, but looks to be curving in the nom as Fir says. The out building is inclined at a peculiar angle, so the representation here is not too bad. A significant issue is that the tower in the nom is oddly distorted too - it appears to be angled to the left, but should be parallel with the main face. --jjron 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above comments. Sorry, I was leaning towards support if the shadows were fixed, but encyclopaedic value is too compromised by the distortions in the pano. --jjron 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was about to point out the same thing as Fir. I visited the place a while ago and the best pano was from quite a way back, not close in like this. Commendable effort to get the little house in, but ultimately a perspective nightmare. Hate to rub salt in, but a much more interesting elevation is just around the corner. --mikaultalk 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 or Edit 2 High quality and highly encyclopedic. -- Shark face  217  22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(mainly due to unaddressed quality concerns re:distortion). MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)