Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shiva Statue

Shiva Statue

Shiva Statue in Bangalore, India

Reason: I Discovered this quite by accident on the meditation page, it caught my eye, so here it is.
Articles this image appears in: Meditation, Shiva, Yoga, List of mystics, Bhakti yoga
Creator: User:Deepak released it on 31st December 2005 under CC-BY-SA-2.0 amd GFDL
Nominator: TomStar81 (Talk)

Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, personally I could overlook either the size, the slight compression artifacts or the composition for the encyclopedic value, but not all 3. Noclip 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the size meets the criterfddssdfsion!HIREN K PATELDebivort 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Marginal size, muddled composition, artifacts. —Dgies^t c 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this has been my favorite pic on wikipedia...even before I was an editor! Seriously meets the size requirements and I am willing to overlook the very minimal artifacts. Arjun 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support I find it very imposing and dramatic. size and minor artifacts do not diminish this for me. I'm also curious what people don't like about it's composition - which seems rather straight forward to me. Debivort 10:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject is off-center, tilted, there is a bunch of distracting stuff in the foreground, and the overcast sky makes the status's backdrop blend in. —Dgies^t c 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Off center in its orientation, rather than positioning right? Ok ... thanks. For me: the objects in the foregrounds give scale, and it's true the backdrop rocks blend in, but they aren't the main subject. Debivort 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shiva is positioned a little to the left of center, and turned a little to the left. In another subject it wouldn't matter so much but symmetry is important in this statue. —Dgies^t c 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 11:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for supporters: Aside from the interesting subject, how is this anything more than an average-quality tourist snapshot? —Dgies^t c 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well here's a thought experiment: I think if "average-quality tourist snapshots" were this good, we would be swamped with tons of even better FPCs - since roughly half of all "tourist snapshots" would, by assumption, be even better. Since such a glut of nice tourist images don't exist, this image must therefore be better than average. Debivort 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose~~. Artifacts.Bewareofdog 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no artifacts at screen rez. It’s an oddly compelling photo. To be somewhat oxymoronic, I find the pastel colors, subtle yet bold in a strange way. (I don't quite know how that can happen in the same photo.) The vignetting around the image helps to draw the viewer's eye to the center. The colors play well off of each other. I’m a tiny bit on edge whether it’s up to full FP standards as an outstanding image, but something about it seems to set it apart from the touristy snapshot it could have been in a different light. --Mactographer 08:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'd love to support... but too many image quality issues. gren グレン 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not an exceptionally good photograph in my opinion. The composition and image quality could be much better. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really like the image, but I think we can do better - it's not our best work. Trebor 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This stunning statue deserves better. TotoBaggins 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]