Reason

While mediocre compared to Diliff's incredible FP of the subject, perhaps a higher-resolution daytime shot would also be an appropriate FP. The image is stitched together from 18 different photos, so if you see any stitching problems please point them out and give me a chance to fix them before opposing.

Articles this image appears in

Washington Monument

Creator

User:Noclip

Nominator

Noclip

• Support — Noclip 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice pic. The half mass flags make the pic very interesting and unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arjun01 (talk • contribs).
• Oppose - There is already a FP of the monument here, which I prefer. Alvesgaspar 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - You have duplicate people. There are some minor focus problems. Existing FP is better and it is not especially different or rare to have flags at half staff. —Dgies^t c 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Duplicate people everywhere --froth^{T C} 03:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry. Per all above. Sorry I should have said that I agree with Alvesgasper that there is already a featured picture of this monument that seems better than each picture edited and unedited on the side.--Why1991 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Changed from support due to the above. — Arjun 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)change to support e1[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm not going to completely degrade this picture; it's really not a bad shot. But, the duplicate people hurt it pretty bad for me. --Tewy 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 1. I can't find any other duplicate people (obvious ones, at least), so it's much better now. --Tewy 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Edit 1 As far as I can tell you only removed one double. There are certainly more remaining.. one glaring example is the guy walking in front of the monument with his hand on it --froth^{T C} 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you tell those are doubles?! They are only tiny black silouettes and look the same anyways. Certainly not apparent to the casual observer. FPC is really getting me confused nowadays...--Dschwen 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 It took me about a minute of careful scanning before I picked out the duplicate people (the couple) in the original. With that removed, I can't find any duplicates (even after a few minutes of scanning). There are obviously duplicates still remaining, but they're not identifiable. It's rare for flags to be lowered to flag staff and in this case, they were lowered for the death of a significant historical figure. The other featured pic of the Washington Monument is a night shot and the flags were not at half staff. Also, the fact that there are people in the pic makes it more interesting. I don't see many pics that were stitched together and contained people (undoubtedly due to the doubling issue). Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can guarantee that there are no duplicates within 25 feet of the Monument. If you're seeing them it's you, not the photo. All the people you see in that portion were taken from a single photo. Noclip 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, so much for the glaring example. *shakes head* --Dschwen 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can those who oppose please point out what the other problems are now that the duplicate people have been removed? Noclip 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is slightly tilted to the left. Hard to tell from the monument itself, and I'm not sure it the (grass) horizon can be trusted, but despite perspective distortion the flagpole directly in front of the monument should be vertical. It isn't, the one to the left of it is though. Might be just a degree. Sorry for coming up with that so late. Maybe this nom should be restated/suspended. It seems a bit unfair to me that almost everybody opposed due to doubles which do not exist anymore in the edit, but nobody bothers to check back on the nomination. --Dschwen 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree. This picture has a good chance of becoming featured if it can get some fair votes. --Tewy 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - I'll kick it off. I like the flags at half-mast, which I think is enough to merit two FPs of the same subject. --Iriseyes 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I'll refrain from making penis jokes to prove my point. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 1. The edit fixes the duplicate problem, and although we already have an FP, this one is during the day and the flags are half mast. NauticaShades 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 per others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original You can't say whether these people are duplicates or not (maybe they have similar clothes?). And I think that this daytime shot is a good addition to the already featured picture of the Washington Monument. -Wutschwlllm 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually a couple that is obviously duplicated. They appear beneath the in-shadow side of the Monument on the lawn, and again to the right, beneath the middle of the flags. Chances are, the same clothing and same walking direction indicate duplication. That was all the edit corrected. --Tewy 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I've seen them. However, until now I did not realize that the man really has the exact same clothing (blue shoulders). But still, even if they are duplicates, it's a very, very minor mistake. -Wutschwlllm 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Per above --Fir0002 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Please elaborate. The issue "above" has been addressed. Noclip 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok to specify a little more I agree with Dgies, and there's something wierd going on in the bottom LHS --Fir0002 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dgies' comment is adressed by the edit. What do you reckon is weird in the botton LHS? --Dschwen 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 the edit fixing the problem. And the half mast flags make for an interesting pic. Arjun 12:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Slightly tilted, not bright enough, half-mast doesn't look as good. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If we go for a second shot of the WM, we should look for a different angle. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean? Look at the current FP, this is from a different angle. Noclip 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm more thinking this kind of different angle. ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (no consensus) --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]