Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPG

File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 16:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support fine work! --Hubertl 17:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose No more than a QI. We have lots of perfectly good photos like these at QI but what is it that gives this wow or shows technical excellence? The camera was off-centre so the centre of the arch and the distant pillars is not in line. The crop, cutting the statues, is arbitrary (perhaps it can't be helped, but the result is the crop seems arbitrary). The camera appears to be titled upwards (making the columns converge). -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not able to stand directly in front of the arcade, because there are column. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not so bothered by the lack of symmetry, and also on the basis of this statement, I'm fine with giving this pretty photo a moderate level of  Support. It's pretty enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Colin has the point here, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lack of symmetry is distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support To me this image is trying to show us some of the architectural details, not all of them. Yes, it's unfortunate that the statues at the side are cropped, but without it being pointed out I would not have noticed and frankly to me it just helps focus our attention on the arch, the keystone, the frieze, the capitals and the cornices (Plus I am willing to give Jacek the benefit of the doubt about not being able to position himself the way he'd like to have). I like the color and the lines in the image, and it's done well enough for me to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 03:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Would have been a borderline case for me even with perfect symmetry. Certainly a QI, but it doesn't really WOW me. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)