Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nagoya Castle

Nagoya Castle

Reason: High quality image of Japanese architecture.
Articles this image appears in: Japanese architecture (in a gallery), Japanese castle, Nagoya, Nagoya-juku, Nagoya Castle, Oda clan
Creator: Base64

Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support as an encyclopedic image of a beautiful structure, although it lacks the wow factor of some other images being nominated. I might have preferred a different angle, setting the smaller annex off more in the background --it's less attractive with the big blank wall and the windows closed off. Fletcher (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose The lighting makes the colours look a bit dull, which lowers the wow factor a lot. Perhaps it can be edited to artificially improve the lighting? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I agree with my fellow voters that the "wow" factor is lacking and that another angle might have been better, but I have to say that the photo is very good quality and quite encyclopedic. It's not the most impressive image out there, but it definitely conveys a lot of information about the castle. NauticaShad es 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow was the first thing I thought when I saw this. Very beautiful! Clegs (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great picture. Great wow value, much more interesting than a bunch of pictures of butterflies (references today's pic of the day). Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support/Comment Great picture, but its placement in the Japanese architecture article seems somewhat haphazard, like it was just randomly inserted to add clout to this nomination. Fryslan0109 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose similar to Shoemaker, although I'd prefer reshooting under better lighting conditions. Durova^Charge! 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could look a little better however I'd disagre about why it looks dim, the lightning isn't great but the cloud cover itself makes the whole image look darker however lighting aside it's a nice shot. Cat-five - talk 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked at nearly all the Japanese castle photos on Wikipedia, but I think this one shows the structure and decoration more clearly than any others. The "dim" lighting doesn't bother me, as direct sunlight tends to cause glare on those white walls and make things slightly blurry. A. Parrot (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~edit~~ all Adjusted the curves, and avoiding blown highlights on the another hand. --Base64 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose edit Sorry, just looks washed out now. Needs a bit more saturation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
InfoJust added a bit more saturation. Where do you see washed out? --Base64 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, this picture could easily find its way into the article on the Japanese castle. I also want to reiterate that its place on the Japanese architecture article is somewhat haphazard and should be revised so it fits in with the overall scheme of the article. Fryslan0109 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - The Orignal it now more satuared and sharper. The trees are not dull anymore. --Arad (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Oppose Edit - I really appreciate the effort put into the edit. But I think the Shadow/Highlight function was a little bit overused, and there was no need for it in the first place. Great photo otherwise. --Arad (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well that makes it 9 supports/weak supports and only 1 conditional oppose and 1 weak oppose for the original! I'll see if I can move the image in the architecture and add it to Japanese castle, unless someone beats me to it! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again)! I put it in Japanese castle, moved it in Japanese architecture, and listed all of the articles it appears in at the top of this FP nomination! Sorry if I messed up! <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fg2 (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support have to agree with Nautica, about WOW factor. M.K. (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let you know, it seems someone has replaced the pic in the Nagoya Castle article. Fryslan0109 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit 1 per Arad. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 - The original seems to lack a bit of contrast to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any but edit 1, IMO, it seems like the editor for that one made it look like a drawing/painting. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer edit 2.--ragesoss (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted edit 2. --Meld shal 22:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why edit 2 is not uploaded to commons? --Base64 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I'll move it now Noodle snacks (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Nagoya Castle(Edit2).jpg - this is another mess; I don't feel that Edit 2 clearly has a majority, though 2 preferenced it and no one opposed it after it went up. However given that Arad overwrote the Original with an Edit anyway during the nomination, we're actually dealing with 3 edits. Thus I'm leaving it with the official Edit 2, but it should really have been put up for more user input when it was first 'closed'. --jjron (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]