Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyramids of Giza

The Giza pyramids
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 22:21:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:It may not be the uttermost & best quality, though it does show the most important Egyptian pyramids, the Giza Plateau and the outskirts of Giza-city all in one. There are many maps of this plateau, but here is an aerial blueprint of it all.
 * Articles in which this image appears:at this moment: Egyptian pyramids, Giza Necropolis, Giza Plateau, Pyramid
 * FP category for this image:it could be several: artwork (is it art?), landscape (part of Egyptian landscape), culture (Egyptian culture), engineering and technology (build with 'π/pi'?), history (where to start?), places (Cairo, Giza, Egypt, etc.), sciences (again with the 'π/pi', and the way it is all build)… The pyramids are rather versatile. This photo could (mostly) be used in whatever way you want. These are universal buildings, and lots of theories are attached to them. Go wild, if you'd like.
 * Creator:Robster1983


 * Support as nominator -- Ρόμπστερ 1983  ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜  22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I really like the composition of this. It shows just how close the pyramids are to the city, as well as the size of the pyramids, and the vastness of Cairo. Unfortunately the quality is just too low for this to be a featured picture. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry. I agree that this is a very interesting picture, but I feel the image quality is just too low. Quality isn't everything, but this isn't really a unique shot, either. I hope this doesn't discourage- new faces at FPC are always appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A very good image composition wise but I feel in this case you have been limited by the quality of the camera. --Muhammad (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment II Of course this does't discourage me! Adding a photo to FPC means that it is looked at in several ways, one of them being certain standards in terms of quality. And even I have to be honest: I have seen photos on this page that are way better (my guess is that there are a lot of high quality/professional photographers here on wikipedia). :) I think it's a good thing what you're all doing here. :) Ρόμπστερ 1983   ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜  10:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Too small, poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Composition and encyclopedic value of the subject are good, but the image quality suffers greatly from the inferiority of the camera. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have to agree with everyone. It is a nice photo, but the camera just wasn't up to the task of taking a featured picture. Hope you stick around anyway, Robster. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)