Original - Cyrus Cylinder; the world’s first charter of
human rights in the
British Museum in
London.Observer Edit (Example only, do not vote for) - The focus is unmistakably on the document and it actually fills the frame. Not much can be done about technical quality due to heavy crop.
Reason
It is the first known declaration of the HUMAN RIGHTS, issued by the emperor
Cyrus II of
Persia. In the 1970s, the
Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of
human rights. The Cyrus cylinder is now being kept in the
British Museum in
London.
oppose - technical quality: composition, jpeg artifacts, lack of focus at full rez, and lack of detail in actual subject.
deBivort09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I unstruck the votes because I don't think it is fair unless they were confirmed to be sockpuppets or anonymous voters (one user has been here since 2004, not sure about the others), and nothing in the FP criteria actually requires users to provide a reason to vote or not, and while someone suggested canvassing was going on, no actual evidence was provided.
Thisglad (
talk)
09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose, I do not believe this meets any of the FP criteria. The object is to small, reflections which are easily removed with a circular polariser are in the way, there is ISO noise, lots of distracting content, is not unique, would not enhance the article. The edit shows what it should be more like, though the edit certainly isn't FP material either.
Capital photographer (
talk)
10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, a much better photo could be easily taken of the subject. Cluttered background, subject is a small section of the entire picture, noise, artifacting, poor lighting for the angle, glass in the way, camera shake, can barely see the subject at all. Get closer to the subject (i.e. about a foot lower and right up against the glass, straight on to it, use a tripod and zoom in, about 800 film speed and a diffuse flash if possible. Alternatively, get someone with a good camera to take it. Possibly compromised nom too. E4T3A2 —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If I get a chance, I'll have a go at this one. Its not usually easy to get a good shot through a reflective glass box though, particularly as they would likely ban tripod use. I'm not sure it would be FP material.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a snapshot with no value in either technical or subject quality. Besides, looking at the first several votes this nomination is a very clear troll.
Lipton sale (
talk)
14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Original - Cyrus Cylinder; the world’s first charter of
human rights in the
British Museum in
London.Observer Edit (Example only, do not vote for) - The focus is unmistakably on the document and it actually fills the frame. Not much can be done about technical quality due to heavy crop.
Reason
It is the first known declaration of the HUMAN RIGHTS, issued by the emperor
Cyrus II of
Persia. In the 1970s, the
Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of
human rights. The Cyrus cylinder is now being kept in the
British Museum in
London.
oppose - technical quality: composition, jpeg artifacts, lack of focus at full rez, and lack of detail in actual subject.
deBivort09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I unstruck the votes because I don't think it is fair unless they were confirmed to be sockpuppets or anonymous voters (one user has been here since 2004, not sure about the others), and nothing in the FP criteria actually requires users to provide a reason to vote or not, and while someone suggested canvassing was going on, no actual evidence was provided.
Thisglad (
talk)
09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose, I do not believe this meets any of the FP criteria. The object is to small, reflections which are easily removed with a circular polariser are in the way, there is ISO noise, lots of distracting content, is not unique, would not enhance the article. The edit shows what it should be more like, though the edit certainly isn't FP material either.
Capital photographer (
talk)
10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, a much better photo could be easily taken of the subject. Cluttered background, subject is a small section of the entire picture, noise, artifacting, poor lighting for the angle, glass in the way, camera shake, can barely see the subject at all. Get closer to the subject (i.e. about a foot lower and right up against the glass, straight on to it, use a tripod and zoom in, about 800 film speed and a diffuse flash if possible. Alternatively, get someone with a good camera to take it. Possibly compromised nom too. E4T3A2 —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If I get a chance, I'll have a go at this one. Its not usually easy to get a good shot through a reflective glass box though, particularly as they would likely ban tripod use. I'm not sure it would be FP material.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a snapshot with no value in either technical or subject quality. Besides, looking at the first several votes this nomination is a very clear troll.
Lipton sale (
talk)
14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply