Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Childhood of Mennonite in Southern Missouri.JPG

File:Childhood of Mennonite in Southern Missouri.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 15:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Childhood of Mennonite in Southern Missouri.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Childhood of Mennonite in Southern Missouri.JPG

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I took this image without flash or other additional artificial lightning. This is a contre-jour shot. The faces are illuminated by reflected sunlight coming from the clothes and from the arms. I made this photograph with the Rule of thirds: the left girl got one column width, the right girl two column width. Therefore the dress of the left girl is cropped. The photograph gives information about the childhood of Mennonite girls. They live in self made clothes near to the nature without electricity, television and Internet. The image is made 2004 with Olympus OM-3 on Kodak reversal film and scanned by Nikon Coolscan V ED. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose żal fota do pupci taką to mi na papierze toaletowym wydrukujcie bede sie nią podcierać log in to vote. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose the worst photo ever! I HATE IT ! some kids on a treee it's awful! log in to vote. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support excellent colors-tones (film quality).. Ggia (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• vorerst  Neutral: Interessante Stimmung, gute Komposition, den Ansatz an die Drittel-Regel ist erkennbar und schön, nur qualitativ überzeugt es mich nicht (Artefakte, verpixelt oder irgendsowas, auch leichte Unschärfe (siehe vorallem Gesicht des rechten Mädchens)). Daher erst mal Enthaltung. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Do you speak english? --The Photographer (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Somewhat, but not really good. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- Hoş bir resim ancak sağ alt köşe oldukça parlak görünüyor. Ayrıca bu resimde öğreticilik adın bir şey göremedim. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• lol :-) But the difference to my comment is that the author know waht I wrote... But okay, I'm going to translate my comment for the others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not lol for me. I think it is OK to write review comments in ones own native language, if, e.g., a user finds it hard to express himself in English. Mulazimoglu has several times been asked to give more thorough oppose reasons, but has expressed a difficulty in expressing a reason in English. I have given him the advice to use his native language then, as surely, a reviewer will be helpful with translation if needed. Using an autotranslator I understand some of the oppose reason as being due to the image being too bright, especially in the lower right corner. And then there is another point, which I do not not quite understand, but maybe somebody else can help? --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Commons is an international project and we welcome those who are not fluent in English to participate. The FPC guidelines explicitly encourage those without English language fluency to comment in their own language. Multilingual reviews encourage broader participation at FPC. I thank Mulazimoglu for his/her comments and I think they are helpful. I think the other comment relates to the educational value of the image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not lol for me neither. I am happy enough to understand two or three other languages different of my native one, but it is very difficult. I would like to than Mulazimoglu too because his comments are very useful, and very understandable with an auto translator. I agree with him about the technical point in the right corner below. And I confirm: a turkish-french auto translation says that he is not convinced by the educative value of this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Many blown areas (sunlit areas on the dress and hair of the one on the left). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment the warm colors (due to the use of film) gives you a "dream feeling".. the sunlit areas.. are not bad. specially in the left girl.. seems that they work creatively in the general composition.. The sunlit area of the hair of the right girl.. probably it is a little be not so nice.. Ggia (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Yes, the lighting is beautiful but that's it. I'm not fond of the composition (especially the girl seen from below) and would have given more space on top. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Because the quality isn't bad in that it's sharp and not speckled, though you might've had your camera on the wrong lighting setting when taking it, can the lighting be fixed digitally? --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is possible to revise a scanned slide digitally, but it is not possible to undo blown areas. You can see, I made an update with revised lighting and better colors. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I don't know whyt, but, I love it --The Photographer (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I made an update with better colors. Is the lighting o.k. or too dark? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
•  OpposeI'm sorry I don't see in this picture alone what can be featurable without explanations of the nominator, even the subject (no doubt about they are mennonite girls, for instance, but only because you say they are.)--Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose，per Alvesgaspar--shizhao (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)