Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wat Phra Kaew

Wat Phra Kaew
Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017  at 19:00:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:Iconic view of Thailand's most iconic group of buildings. I particularly like the late afternoon lighting, which shows how the structures gleam in the sunlight and gives the picture better contrast than those taken at high noon (though it admittedly casts some shadows).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Wat Phra Kaew
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Ninaras (via Flickr)


 * Support as nominator – Paul_012 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Shadows of trees disturbing (the big ones on the lawn). Crop is too close to the top of the tower. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support For me nice -- LivioAndronico (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Chris.  lNeverCry   03:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Edit 1 - as the objections raised related entirely to elements which were not part of the encyclopedic content of the picture (grass and sky), it seemed worth attempting a quick edit to address these. The only edits are using cloning and Content Aware Fill to remove the tree shadows and add some extra sky (including removing the bush from the top corner); there are no edits to the main subject.  Thoughts?  Is this sort of edit OK for FP?  (Feel free to consider separately the question of whether they are in theory, and whether my particular edits are sufficiently competent!)  TSP (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not quite sure. I doubt anyone would oppose cloning in a strip 20 pixels wide, but at >10% of the original height this seems quite significant. That said, I'd still like to support the edit, but the cloned clouds in the top-right corner do show some visible repeating patterns. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit 2, as a rather more moderate edit which I think also takes out the repeating patterns? (This is a CSS image crop at the moment, to avoid filling Commons with very similar images, so clicking on it will take you to the original; it could easily be created properly if accepted.)  TSP (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better, I think. I'd alternatively support Edit 2. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 - Looks much better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 – Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 - the subject is good, and I'm happy with my edit if others are :-) TSP (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the CSS crop with a proper image crop, as it's gaining popularity - this should be identical. (Though I think my previous display code was slightly wrong, so this one displays about a pixel wider - all edits should now be displaying at the same width.)  TSP (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 -- 1989 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)