Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drottningholms slott April 2015 02.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 11:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
Info View from Teaterplanen (the Theatre Square) towards Drottningholms palace. Drottningholm become a world heritage site in 1991, one of the main factors was that it is a very well preserved ensemble of buildings and gardens. The Theatre Square is located right next to the Palace, surrounded by four pavilions and the theater building. We have FP of both the theater and the palace, but the point here is to show the ensemble of buildings. Here is a images in the opposite direction- Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Neutral Nice vista, technically good! --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There are many good aspects about this photo. The technical quality is good, the details are interesting, the lightening is good albeit perhaps a little too dominated by shadows for my taste. My main problem is the composition, which I really fail to find a clear idea behind. It seems for me a little arbitrary, and is not very eye-catching for me, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment The point (and composition) here is as mentioned above about to show the ensemble of buildings and the connection between the square (with four pavilions and the theater) and the palace. All buildings are part of the royal residence. The image focus on the most valuable (architectural and historical) aspect of Drottningholm, that it is a very well preserved ensemble of buildings and gardens (according to UNESCO is the best example of a royal residence built in the 18th century in Sweden and is representative of all European architecture of that period). Of course, I can take a more touristic image of the castle's main facade but it would be a very different bildn (with a very different purpose). I think the composition is good enough, there is a very high educational value and technical quality.--ArildV (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)- I can see your point, ArildV, and from an educational point of view it makes a lot of sense. But from an aesthetical POV, it doesn't really work for me (see Slaunger's comment). Or in FPC-slang: No WOW → Oppose. However, it might be worth a try to nominate it at COM:VI and/or Wikipedia's Featured Pictures, where educational value plays a more important role than here. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition suffers from being made up of essentially separate areas coupled only by the large and rather featureless expanse of foreground. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for comments and reviews.--ArildV (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
