Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Two International Finance Centre2

Two International Finance Centre


This image was once a candidate and the voters liked the image a lot. But because of the blur and noise it had, it failed to be approved. I fixed the problems and renominated it. Here is a link: Two International Finance Centre


 * Striking angle and well offset against the cloud cover. It's good quality and used in International Finance Centre, Hong Kong and Central, Hong Kong. Thank you.
 * Kindly donated by Stewart Johnston.


 * Nominate and support. Arad 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Top is out of focus. HighInBC 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not out of focus. It's because the top of the building has different glass color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.148.132 (talk • contribs).
 * There's definitely motion blur. —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per HighInBC and because we can't see the bottom part or anything interesting. —Keenan Pepper 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Per Above. I don't think it's out of focus, it's just suffering from motion blur. --Fir0002 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the image being FP or not but looks like people have changed from few months ago. In the last nomination this image failed to be FP because of one vote, now no one likes it. Anyway, the votes are appreciated. Arad 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that FP standards are going up as we have access to more and better pictures. Look in the delisting section to see what used to pass as FP. HighInBC 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Camera shake and bottom left corner. --Dschwen 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Opppose per Dschwen. chowells 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. Just out of interest, what do people think of Image:Two International Finance Centre (1).jpg? There's no motion blur... but there is a street lamp :( enochlau (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image you've linked in your comment has a very poor lighting, very grainy, a very distracting details, and a very very distracting lamp in the middle. This one is far better. Arad 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok :) enochlau (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

September 9, 2006, 04:16 (UTC)
 * Oppose probably enough oppose votes anyway. Per above. —Jared Hunt
 * Support Well I have to disagree with you guys. Indeed it's not a perfect picture but it's still one of the best taken from below 2IFC I've seen so far. It gives a sense of awe. --Hús ö nd 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exact same reason that I nominated this pic. I don't think anyone can get a better picture with such a lighting. It's sad that they don't like it. Anyway thanks for the votes. Arad 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)