Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento y Shard, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 076.JPG

File:Ayuntamiento y Shard, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 076.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 19:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento y Shard, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 076.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento y Shard, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 076.JPG

•  Info View of the City Hall (round building on the left), More London office complex and The Shard skyscraper, at the south bank of the Thames, Southwark district, Central London, England. The City Hall was opened in 2002 and comprises the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. All by me, Poco² 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. No wow in this image for me. It's a photo that any tourist would take from Tower Bridge. The river is also a bit unaesthetic at low tide. Diliff (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support If I lived in London I could not even take a picture as good like this. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that, now having seen the phenomenon with my own adult eyes (I might have seen it when I was younger but not appreciated it fully), that the Thames at low tide is better appreciated in poetry than photography. However, on the whole, yes this is a picture most tourists get—which is why we should have one of as high a quality as we can get. If someone uploads a better one one day and nominates it here, then we can delist and replace. (And what's wrong with a classic tourist pic? I seem to remember we have in the past promoted to FP a tourist standard image of Lower Manhattan). Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't see them as the same at all though... The detail visible in the Lower Manhattan image is much much higher (12000x3000 resolution, and pixel sharp, compared to 5000x3000 and not that sharp at 100%), and taken from a moving ferry (so had to shoot the panorama extremely quickly to avoid parallax errors), which makes it stand out compared to tourist snapshots IMO (although I didn't nominate it or vote on it!). I just don't see anything that stands out about this image though. My point wasn't that touristic views shouldn't be eligible for FP, it was that this image doesn't seem any better than a tourist snapshot, for me. The baseline for FPs (for me, anyway) is that it is an image that stands out amongst contemporary photography in some way (detail, composition, lighting, aesthetics etc). This image just doesn't have any of that IMO. Diliff (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case, Commons "Delist and replace" isn't like the en:wp one. We don't delist and replace FPs when someone else takes a better one. We only use it when someone has improved the same image (e.g. a better photo of a painting, a reprocessing from raw file). Generally, once an image is FP it stays that way, and we only delist FPs if they are now embarrassingly bad compared to the standard of today. London is a heavily photographed city and we need to compare this to the kinds of photos that appears exceptional. For example, some very high EV with great detail or panorama, or some beautiful lighting due to time of day or weather. Pointing a high-quality DSLR at bits of London isn't enough. It's a useful picture and nice weather but I don't see it being among our finest. We can wait for someone to take a finer one. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the cloud reflection in the Shard (though I don't much care for the Shard in general). But it isn't exceptional enough for FP of London buildings. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Dman41689 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but per Diliff. --Ivar (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Diliff. Certainly it’s nice and well deserves the green badge but it’s not that outstanding then. --Kreuzschnabel 04:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes