Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wells Cathedral in the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishops Palace

Wells Cathedral in the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishops Palace
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014  at 08:25:52 (UTC)

the same position, which said it had high EV, but colour was poor, I have returned to the same spot on a sunnier day.
 * Reason:Following the previous nomination (Featured picture candidates/Wells Cathedral reflecting pool) of a picture from
 * Articles in which this image appears:Wells Cathedral
 * FP category for this image:Architecture
 * Creator:Rodw


 * Support as nominator --&mdash; Rod talk 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Very nice. (Not sure we need the grassy bank in the extreme foreground, or quite so much sky at top.) Sca (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I rather agree with Sca on this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Hate to be picky, but Alt. 1, while preferable, takes out rather too much of the reflection, IMPO (in my picky opinion). Suggest cropping bottom from just above grassy bank at left straight across, leaving in most of bell tower reflection. Sca (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've recropped to leave in some more of the reflection & uploaded as crop 2 (Alt 2).&mdash; Rod talk 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this, but Alt 2, while the crop is good at the bottom, now feels constrained at the top. Can we have a little more sky? Support original in the meantime. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll get this right! Will add some sky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded over ALT1 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Support Alt. 2 — Looks just right to me. Thanks. Sca (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support either Alt. 1 or Alt. 2 Sca (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1, as the sky gives a bit better balance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Whichever gets the most support, but prefer original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support original or Alt 1, oppose Alt 2. (prefer original) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * you voted earlier. Which vote do you want to keep? --Pine✉ 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This replaces the old one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Beautiful pic. Worth the effort. LIked the misty one better though! Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support original or alt 1, prefer original, oppose alt 2 I like the sense of scale in the original best. --Pine✉ 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

--Herald talk with me 14:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Herald, could you explain your rationale for choosing this particular one? How's the !vote? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Crisco 1492, 6 votes to original...Herald talk with me 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Herald, I count six for ALT1, plus 2 !votes which make no distinction. Three !votes for the original, plus 2 !votes which make no distinction. You may be counting Adam Cuerden's !vote twice, and based on Sca's later !vote I don't think his/her support for the original still stands (although Sca may want to clarify a bit). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492,We can count for Rod, Amandajm, Adam Cuerden, Pine and at last Sca crossing the threshold. When they say support, they do it for the original like Amandajm...Herald talk with me 14:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues are 1) I am not sure Sca's older vote still stands and 2) the ALT may have (has, IMHO) more supports. I would appreciate it if Armbrust or Julia W (both well-versed in closing FPCs, and neither with an interest in this nomination) would have a look to double check the count. To avoid issues later on it's better to double check the close, especially as the !voting for this one is all kinds of messed up (just look at Featured picture candidates/delist/Alitta succinea (epitoke form) for an example of how issues with the tallying can sully a nomination). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Herald, and just a note in case you choose to close nominations later on down the road: in the case of a close !vote, it is best to provide explicit counts, or mention how you came to an understanding of what the consensus is. We haven't had a really close !vote in a couple months, at least, so I can't give you an example off the top of my head. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification — My support was for either Alt. 1 or Alt. 2 — in other words, whichever one of the two garnered the most support. Thus it's correct to infer that I oppose original, since better (and very similar) versions became available later. Does that help? Sorry to be prolix. Sca (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By my count edit 1 has 7 supports, and that should have been promoted. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I far prefer the original. I'll withdraw my support for the alt, to simplify? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This would seem to promote Alt. 1, yes? Sca (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could an uninvolved person make a list of Supports and Opposes for this, so that we can see where everything is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so original has 5 explicit supports and 2 implied opposes ( and ).

Alt 1 has 6 explicit supports and here we must presume that, as Rod has said nothing, he is at best ambivalent about the Alts but not necessarily supporting.

The difficulty with this approach is that of the six explicitly stated supports for the Alt, three prefer the original. If we apply arbitrary weighting, +1 for each support, -1 for each oppose, and +0.5 and -0.5 respectively for preferences, both the original and Alt 1 have a cumulative score of 4.5. Adam's subsequent clarification that he withdraws support for Alt1 swings this to the original for sure. It's up to you guys whether you accept this last minute change or prefer to perhaps ask Rod for his preference as the creator of the image in question. Hope that helps (but it probably doesn't!) Julia\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco has never stated he opposes the original. Unless explicitly said, we can, at most, presume neutrality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it time for mediation? Sca (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the original. It's a nice picture, but I'm not a big fan of the distracting foliage at the top. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm new to featured pictures so not really sure of the procedures etc. I like the original, which is why I took it and nominated it, but understand the comments about the need for the crop so although I would still support the original in a vote I would not be upset if it was the Alt.&mdash; Rod talk 07:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Rod prefers the original, and Adam has withdrawn his support from ALT1, then I guess that pretty much settles it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also you've clarified now that you're neutral on the original, whereas before I had counted you as an implied oppose. So original it is.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well anyway, I was right..was I???<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">Herald<font style="color:Green"> talk with me 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Sca (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Herald: The same decision was made, yes, though with a bit more clarification than you had to work with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * this is one of our more difficult closes at FPC. I think Julia made the right decision after this discussion. --<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;">✉ 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep,...thanks <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">Herald<font style="color:Green"> talk with me  13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree; this has to be the closest close I've seen in a while. Thanks Julia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)