Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schloss Bellevue at night

Schloss Bellevue at night
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2015  at 05:00:18 (UTC)
 * Reason:Nice nighttime picture of a notable building. A daytime version is already featured. Note that this photo is 1,139 pixels high but I believe that the extra-large width of 3,072 makes the image be of adequate size in terms of megapixel area since 1500x1500 pixels = 2,250,000 pixels, while 1139x3702 pixels = 3,499,008 pixels.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bellevue Palace (Germany), Presidential palace
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Avda


 * Support as nominator – Pine✉ 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the maths is correct, I'm afraid this is below minimum spec. Plus the motion blur on the flags is distracting, as is the glare of the lights on the flag poles themselves. There is no detail in the cone-shaped trees lining the edges of the courtyard (again motion blur maybe?) that means they look almost like molded plastic. Also using the horizontal top of the building itself (the bottom of the roof) there seems to be a slight tilt with the left being lower than the right. gaz hiley  09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * longer exposures are common at night due to the necessity of gathering sufficient light. A side effect of that can be motion blur. In this case I think the tradeoff is reasonable. Regarding the glare, those are probably brightly lit areas that unfortunately are overexposed due to the necessity of getting sufficient exposure on less-exposed areas, and again I think the tradeoff is ok here; I'm not sure how possible it is to do better, although someone with more advanced knowledge of photographic techniques, more time to execute postprocessing effects, and/or perhaps a more expensive camera might be able to do better. --Pine✉ 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the technical difficulties, there are sufficient examples on here of night pictures that don't have these issues, and therefore while this is a good picture it isn't among wikipedia's finest sorry... gaz hiley  09:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Jobas (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Images are intended to have a minimum measurement in their shorter dimension, not a minimum number of pixels. So this one is still too small. It seems it would be easy for someone to take a better one. Samsara 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this one passes, it's easy enough to replace it with a better one in the future. Regarding the 1500 minimum, I think the large horizontal size is adequate enough reason to IAR as far as the literal interpretation of the 1500 minimum is concerned; the overall impression and informative value of the photo are of higher importance in my view. --Pine✉ 20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Featured picture criteria is completely unambiguous: 1500*1500 is the bare minimum, with exceptions decided by consensus. Consensus is clearly against ignoring the minimum here. This is not a historical picture, not of a really small subject, and not at a ridiculous aspect ration (think 1:20). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * while you are welcome do disagree with the nomination, I would like to request that you reword your comments. Prior to your vote, there were 2 votes in favor and 2 opposed, which is far from an assessment that "clearly is consensus against" the nomination. "No consensus" and "not yet consensus" are different from "consensus against". So I would like to ask you to rephrase your assessment. Your vote can still stand as opposed. Thanks, --Pine✉ 00:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And now there are three votes against, and one vote for (excluding yours as the nominator, as you are requesting the exception be made). If you want to count yourself, there are two votes for, three against. I fail to see how that is not "clear". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination may fail, and that's fine. At this point I am more concerned with your definition of the term "consensus", which we are using in different ways. I'll take this discussion to your talk page because it's a separate issue from the image nomination. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per above, below minimum resolution. Mattximus (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small, specially for such a big building and a static subject like this. Yann (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ per emerging consensus. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 15:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)