Reason: It is a high res image of one of Frank Lloyd Wright's most famous buildings.
Proposed caption: Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater. Originally built in 1935 as a weekend residence for Edgar J. Kaufmann, it is now open to the public as a museum.
Articles this image appears in: Fallingwater
Creator: User: Sxenko

Support as nominator Sxenko 4:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Like I mentioned before, this should have been reviewed on the peer review first. Probably the lowest quality I've seen anywhere near FP discussion. The background is a disaster and the colors are terrible. Not even run through a basic clean up effort on editing software from the looks of it. NyyDave 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst FP nom you have seen? de Bivort 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been around long enough to see the real thing eh? I'll buy that. I don't know what it is about it. Reminds me of the things I critiqued in High School. NyyDave 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in light of your comments, I made a new edit, wherein I solved problem with that distracting background, and enhanced the colors so that they are no longer so bad. Also, I ran it through alot of cleanup software so it would look absolutely perfect. I hope you find this one of a higher quality that the first. Sxenko 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the new edit, a poor attempt at humor. 68.166.155.242 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the edit, please vote here and state why it is/isn't deserving of being a featured picture; otherwise please refrain from removing them altogether. 68.219.17.226 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I like the composition (this is the standard view, and a better one is barely possible), but focus is not that great. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus issue. Please remove the joke, thanks. --Janke | Talk 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to soft image quality. The shot is from the "standard" location, and it's certainly possible to do better from there. It would be nice to get a shot without all the tourists, but that would probably require special arrangements. I also Oppose the incivility expressed above—while this isn't FP quality, it's a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia and there's no need for rudeness. -- Coneslayer 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor focus. The edit is funny, leave it. --⁪ffroth 16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus, and the edit is in need of a saturation boost. Really, though, it's not at all bad. thegreen J Are you green? 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL the edit is a joke --⁪ffroth 06:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got that.... thegreen J Are you green? 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I don't think you understand - the edit was made ironically - and isn't a real candidate. de Bivort 05:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J's comment that it needs more saturation was made ironically, and wasn't a real suggestion. -- Coneslayer 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was sarcasm... how could the edit possibly need more saturation? thegreen J Are you green? 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It seems like the edit is too washed out to me!! de Bivort 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]