Reason

It is a somewhat interesting view of the building and the plants add to the beauty of the photo.

Articles this image appears in

United States Capitol

Creator

AgnosticPreachersKid

• Support as nominator --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is a lot of noise and jpeg artifacting. Mfield (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mfield. Also, limited view of building hurts EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, I could like it to be sharper/less artifacted, but I think it's good enough. It focuses on a part of the building I can't remember seeing before; composition is cut off in order to focus on it.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Mfield. The jpeg artifacts can even be seen at small scale. This is more snapshot material. To the right I offer a comparison (also a snapshot), shown as Comparison 1, which has greater saturation (bluer sky-yes that's what it looked like that day; more realistic colors for the fountain - i.e. the fountain looks more like that shown Comparison 1 IRL than it does in the FPC) and shows almost the same view (though at a more acute angle. I wouldn't nominate this image either b/c it doesn't meet FP requirements. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually your sky isn't particularly realistic given the strong vignette --Fir0002 05:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, I'm not sure why that happened; no other photo I took that day came out like that. But I'm not a professional and I only use a pocket Nikon, so I take what I get (or get what I take?). I still think my previous comments stand. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I don't think EV concerns about not showing the whole building are valid. This is a shot of the west portico and fountain where presidential inaugurations have occurred since Reagan.D-rew (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wasn't sure I liked the composition, but the technical quality makes it a moot point: just too noisy and artifacted. Fletcher (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Very poor quality and little encyclopaedic relevance. The angle is not the best either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]