Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle

Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle

 * Reason:This one has been bouncing around for a while on my PC/Wikipedia. There is already a FP of this subject but I actually think the composition of this nomination is a bit better, and has the added interest of the marching guards. It meets all criteria as far as I can see. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Windsor Castle
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I certainly like the lighting in this one a lot better than the existing FP, however I'm not too keen on the tower on the RHS being partially cropped - seems like composition could be improved a bit --Fir0002 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could never get the colour balance quite right in the old FP. Probably should have another go at it actually because the castle looks a bit too orange to my eyes now, especially compared to this FPC which I think is pretty close to what I remember seeing. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The usual Diliff quality and touch plus a very nice composition and mood in my opinion. The room to the right of the guards is rightfully placed I believe and I don't think the crop on the rightmost tower kills it. Blieusong (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I'm with Fir on this one. Quality is very good but looks like something is missing at right. If it were another author I would probably give a full support... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with what is a subjective issue of composition, but is it fair to judge me more harshly than other authors? ;-) This is about featuring the picture, not the author. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the technical quality is great as always but this is such a small portion of the castle that it worries me a bit featuring it... 88.163.48.104 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support quality is good enough in my opinion. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great Pic. Shows the Royalty very Rolally.  There is a little life in the picture which just adds to the grandness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobshoe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wonderfully detailed image, but I really miss the rest of the tower at right... Any chance of getting a version with it? --Janke | Talk 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to go back to the original files, but I suspect not. If you look at the other FP (refered to at the top of the nom), you can see what is missing. This nomination image was taken from the gate on the far right of the old FP, behind and to the right of the statue. There really isn't anything particular behind the far right of this image except a fairly plain wall. You can also look at the geocoding to compare the locations. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Complements the other Windsor Quadrangle FP (I can visualize the quad in 3D, matching up the same feature from different angles). Weak because I would like a wider frame on the right.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)