Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Centre Block of the Canadian Parliament

Centre Block of the Canadian Parliament

I found this majestic image of the main building of the Canadian Parliament by Steven W. Dengler. I've cropped out some stuff in the foreground and lightened it a bit from his original image. It seems to fit your criteria for featured images.

Nominate and support. - Arctic Gnome 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bit overly-sharpened and resolution on the low scale. Building is tilted (corrected in edit1, not perfectly though). Will change to full support if a higher resolution copy is available. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not great resolution/detail, perspective in both original and edit 1 slightly off. Looks oversharpened. Would benefit from the more traditional straight-on view rather than slightly off-centre. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment edit1 overcorrects the perspective. It looks like a loony toons sketch with a humongous tower. --Dschwen 10:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that was a quick and dirty fix. This time it is slightly better but still not entirely perfect... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support edit 1 I don't like the bits and pieces that are left in the foreground of either version, but it seems like a good picture generally. Terri G 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 - There is something unnatural about the geometry of this building not totally corrected by the editing: horizontal lines are very slightly curved, which is disturbing to my eyes. That's why I don't normally appreciate wide-angle building photos or panoramas. Also, the colours are somehow washed out. Maybe be these are natural colours, but a slight saturation correction wouldn't do much harm. Alvesgaspar 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1 Too many distracting objects make this a bit of a tourist shot. If we feature this, we better stick to the original though. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak support, original edit 1 is too far, but orig isn't enough. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too much foreground clutter. This picture could be improved by taking it from the other side of the street. Then you lose the road, the ugly yellow sign, the foreground rope and the two foreground pedestrians (although it's always a problem taking this building without people intruding into the photo — maybe an early morning photo in summer is what's really needed). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Artifacts on the tower combined with low resolution. Noclip 05:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]