Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
•  Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment This is actually the back half of an unintentional slow delist and replace. After my 2015 version was recently demoted due to the discovery that its margin of promotion had been due to one now-banned user !voting twice with one of his sock accounts, I looked at it and decided against renominating it as it was since a) I'm not totally sure as it was that I would have voted for it if someone else had nominated it and b) I have learned more about editing my images since then. I also realized that some of the oppose !votes in the original had had some points.

  So, instead, I dragged out the original raw file and started from scratch. The result is an image that I would definitely support if someone else nominated it ... less brightness on the building and the clouds and thus easier on the eyes, its perspective slightly corrected, and not cropped in as much at the left so we can see a bit more of its locational context. (I would also like to thank Cart for one last tweak she suggested).

  I see this as not just a worthy candidate but a testament to how regular participation in this forum can help us grow and improve at our art. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Yep. The Star Trek building is definitely better than before, so here is my vote. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lower part of the picture is quite messy. The guy on the left and the cut-off signs on the right do not belong in on the image, the lamppost on the left is not vertical. That' s no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, to live in a world where all lampposts really are vertical. I never assume that a lamppost is perfectly vertical IRL. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. Of course I don't think that all the lampposts are vertical, but you can see here that the image is distorted, which is nothing unusual with the focal length used. But one could try to change that. Just because the building has no horizontals or verticals nobody is bothered by it.--Ermell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ermell: I have cropped the image at bottom and left to eliminate those two things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• That looks much better, but the guy with the camera doesn't make any sense at all.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, I honestly didn't realize he was there until I started working on the image again, as I'd cropped him out of the first one. And I decided this time that, given that the first one had been criticized as a little tight (or at least I remember that it was), I would give it more space on the left since the heavy building was on the right. I agree it is a question of taste and might be the sort of thing I'd object to in other images (especially since he's shooting something outside the image). But judging by the !votes here, not many other people mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Support But the guy is annoying! Charles (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support, and I agree that this is a better composition than the 2015 version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Despite some unsharpness in the corners --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is a messy composition, too many things, too many objects, too many clouds, too many colours and mainly, no depth.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support nice compo, great sky Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#United Kingdom