Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cliff erosion in Pacifica 2009-12-23.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Cliff erosion in Pacifica 2009-12-23.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 19:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)- Info Well another try with IMO rather interesting subject. Please notice bulldozers working in the surf. The crane is used to bring boulders down
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)- Support Good image, high EV --Herby talk thyme 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral a bit too tight - I'd like to see a wider perspective --Leafnode✉ 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)- Support Neat! Diti the penguin — 18:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - Valuable quality image, but the balance falls too much into left hand side IMO for a FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- So in your opinion it would have been better without the crane? --Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the crane makes the photo heavy on left, but on the other hand, without it the documentational value of the image would be lower. Anyway, I think this is a good news photograph and doubt that anyone else could have done it better from this angle. I just don't think it's exceptional enough to be featured. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is only the best image of erosion on Commons, the image that not only shows erosion itself, but the work that is done to fix it, but of course it is not good enough to be featured I guess
. BTW, if I may ask, what was wrong with that image File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg, on what side it was heavy :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please calm down - it was a neutral vote, not even an oppose! :-) I just think that these pictures were not aesthetically as exceptionally superb as e.g. your best pics, like File:Crepuscular_rays_and_Dead_trees_at_Mammoth_Hot_Springs.jpg or File:Seal_Rock_from_Cliff_House.jpg, are. While falling of a house into Pacific is of course very important and we should take erosion seriously, in my opinion we are not talking about historically very important pictures here compared to e.g. first aeroplane flight etc. Therefore, I expect the aesthetics to be on par with the other FPs. This is just an opinion of one Commons user from a distant country - don't take it too seriously! Keep up the good work and Happy new year! BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- whatever... Happy New Year to you too!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please calm down - it was a neutral vote, not even an oppose! :-) I just think that these pictures were not aesthetically as exceptionally superb as e.g. your best pics, like File:Crepuscular_rays_and_Dead_trees_at_Mammoth_Hot_Springs.jpg or File:Seal_Rock_from_Cliff_House.jpg, are. While falling of a house into Pacific is of course very important and we should take erosion seriously, in my opinion we are not talking about historically very important pictures here compared to e.g. first aeroplane flight etc. Therefore, I expect the aesthetics to be on par with the other FPs. This is just an opinion of one Commons user from a distant country - don't take it too seriously! Keep up the good work and Happy new year! BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is only the best image of erosion on Commons, the image that not only shows erosion itself, but the work that is done to fix it, but of course it is not good enough to be featured I guess
- Yes, the crane makes the photo heavy on left, but on the other hand, without it the documentational value of the image would be lower. Anyway, I think this is a good news photograph and doubt that anyone else could have done it better from this angle. I just don't think it's exceptional enough to be featured. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support rare! --George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
