Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TouchWall

TouchWall

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a place of deep personal reflection

This was a chance shot. I wanted to capture the spirit of the place, the extraordinary feeling that you are being watched by the shades of those whose names are listed here, and I took a photograph of the geometry of the situation, the young man in the foreground just looking up at the Wall. I thought my hand might have shaken a little and blurred the photograph in the fading January twilight, so I took another, and as I did so he reached up to touch a name. And my heart. I have placed this in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial article.

Nominate and support. - Pete 06:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs rotation; the Washington Monument is visibly leaning, and the horizon appears to slope (or is that a hill on the right?) —Cryptic (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a hill, see [1] for comparison. --CVaneg 18:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This being taken on a Canon A60, the original would've been 1600x1200. This is 768x858 so it's either been cropped heavily, scaled down or both. Either way the current version looks badly compressed at full size, and not very sharp. ed g2s • talk 18:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version, uncompressed, rotated a further 1.5 degrees, cropped to remove the large area of sky above the central figure and the now slanting borders.
- Where? --Golbez 22:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - It's uploaded with the same filename. Compare the current image with the older one. Coffee 12:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful picture. Phoenix2 15:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Coffee 18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Cryptic (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TomStar81 19:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo, v.nice subject--Fir0002 03:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Excellent composition and subject. Enochlau 05:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Out of focus. ed g2s • talk 09:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks staged and just a bit unsettling to me. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look stages to me. I think he's looking up a particular name Circeus 18:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - See this article for more information on the photograph. BookCrosser 23:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Circeus 18:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Support, but I wonder if he really is looking at a specfic persons name. This link is Broken 12:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dsmdgold 18:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think that it's striking enough to be FP.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this subject matter can be very striking, this one is very tame. Dunc|☺ 14:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no interest, no contrast, focus is indifferent. Sorry to be negative - Adrian Pingstone

Not promoted 11/5 -- Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 08:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

place all votes during extension below this line

Neutral it would be a conflict of interest for me to vote one way or another at this point thus the neutral vote. Even though this is a very moving picture it is somewhat blurry and the focus of the photo is unclear as to whether it's the Vietnam wall, the person, or the Washington monument. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this Support/Oppose count wrong? I make it 11 Supports and 5 Opposes - Adrian Pingstone 15:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this page back on FPC for a short time to see if a more clear concensus could be reached. This link is Broken 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By which you mean you put it back on FPC until you can justify promoting it. You don't have to like the fact that I didn't promote the image but I find this underhanded that you are relisting this because it didn't end the way you hoped. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify why I closed it as such, I closed it as not promoted because there was no clear consensus to promote

I did not mean "put it back until it was promoted" and I feared it would look as such. I recieved an email saying that this vote was particularly close and that perhaps I should review it, I also saw a comment elsewhere suggesting that the result was unclear. I also felt that it was close and some votes were based on incorrect information. In order to allay any fears over vote rigging I think the vote should stay open for no more than 36 hours after it was put back. If nothing changes then, don't promote it. It had quite strong support up until the very end. Sorry for making this look like some sort of insult or unfair tactic. This link is Broken 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(68.75% to promote) and I felt that there were some real concerns with the image as noted in the oppose votes, thus not promoting it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted , no new votes came in during the alotted extension, so it fails. This link is Broken 13:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pity... but ok. Gwyndon 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]