Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 05:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The commune of Balaruc-les-Bains on the bank of the Étang de Thau from the La Gardiole Mountain. Hérault, France. All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)- Strong support Almost no flaws, if any. Beautiful landscape that makes me go "WOW!!!!!" as well. Nothing available for critique in the picture. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose No "wow" and almost nothing interesting. Specialy ferms and wires in front :) --Kikos (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)- Oppose Per Kikos. I don't understand AK's comment at all. The camera has captured a sharp image on its sensor. Other than that, I can't see anything remarkable about this photograph that justifies even QI never mind FP. One has to do more than point the camera at a bit of landscape. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Colin: "Wow" is subjective. ;) I hope you understand that. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Arctic Kangaroo: , I agree wow is subjective, but I wasn't commenting on your "wow" remark, because at the time you hadn't said anything about wow. Saying this has no flaws and cannot be criticised in any way is, well, ridiculously bold and not true of any picture created by someone on Commons let alone an award winning photo in a national gallery. AK, voting like that just makes people suspect you are playing games. This isn't fair on Christian, who I'm sure would prefer a justifiable level of appreciation from supporters rather than the fawning on show above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Colin: OK, I will take note in future. I was just adding the "wow" factor about the imho "beautiful landscape" that I did not mention earlier, following your criticism. Thanks for the feedback. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Arctic Kangaroo: , I agree wow is subjective, but I wasn't commenting on your "wow" remark, because at the time you hadn't said anything about wow. Saying this has no flaws and cannot be criticised in any way is, well, ridiculously bold and not true of any picture created by someone on Commons let alone an award winning photo in a national gallery. AK, voting like that just makes people suspect you are playing games. This isn't fair on Christian, who I'm sure would prefer a justifiable level of appreciation from supporters rather than the fawning on show above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Colin: "Wow" is subjective. ;) I hope you understand that. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I think we all understand that wow is subjective but it also has norms. Look at the FP landscape category for images that are within a wide range that could be considered a norm. This falls well outside that norm. It's a fine picture, but very few people are going to go wow! Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kikos. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. It's a fine image, but nothing about it says anything to me more than standing-on-an-overlook-point-and-shoot. Its most interesting feature to me is the background; nothing closer to foreground captures my attention. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks all. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
