Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seattle

Downtown Seattle

 * Reason:Very beautiful and flowing picture.
 * Articles this image appears in:*List of United States urban areas
 * Creator:


 * Support as nominator ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to noise. In the future please use a less arbitrary (MG 4949 isn't very discriptive).  Cacophony (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As discussed extensively in a recent nom, images appearing only in these 'List of...' articles aren't adding much value to the article/encyclopaedia. If it's good enough it should be in a proper article, such as the main Seattle article. --jjron (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's a very easy problem to fix. The only problem with that is that some people (usually newbs who don't know any better) think nothing of switching out a really good pic for their piece of junk. For this one, I say, by all means, add it to the Seattle article. It would go nicely with the other Seattle FP, which is taken from the land side of the city. Clegs (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As discussed in the other nom I linked to, it's not always as easily fixed as you suggest, especially in big articles like Seattle. Secondly (also as discussed in the other nom), it's something that should be fixed before the image is nominated at FPC - as the first line on this page defines: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles...". It can't add to an article if it's not in it. --jjron (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I find no faults with the picture. However, I think there's too much...water...if you know what I mean. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the newly-uploaded version, my vote has been changed to Support. Good work on addressing the issues we've mentioned. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, excess amount of noise and artefacts, especially in the sky. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since none of the problems I mentioned are present in the new version, I change my vote to Support. Great colours, light, ok sharpeness. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do hope this is not inappropriate - I've only just noticed this nomination, and am flattered. I do feel that many of the comments made are valid, and in light of this have uploaded a newer version - higher res, with a lot less noise and artifacting. I've also adjusted the composition better, as I think the shot benefits from the 'waterline' being lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on usage (please refer to criterion 5). Adds little to no value to this 'article' (well, list) - in fact I'd say it's rather misleading as it only shows 'downtown' Seattle which could suggest to users that that is what is meant by an urban area. The photos of say LA and New York in that article are far more illustrative in this regard. (Incidentally, the new upload hasn't addressed the file naming problems raised by Cacophony either.) --jjron (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, looks great as a thumbnail, but is a huge letdown in full size. The noise may be gone, but the details are too. The highlights look way oversharpened, displaying strong aliasing. Plus I second Jjron's comment about filename and adding value to the 'article'. --Dschwen 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Dschwen. The details are gone and the colors are smudged. Is there a better copy of this anywhere? Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)