Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 09:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg

121

981

589

142

5000

1422

Could this ugly defect (horizontal fold line or something like that) be restored please? --Slaunger (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

263

36

732

931

5000

1422

The tower has significant CCW tilt. Can it be verifed that this tilt is in the original as well (or could it be due to the scan process)? Other lines of buildings are vertical, so it seems strange? --Slaunger (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2351

981

2621

156

5000

1422

Another horiz defect line. --Slaunger (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2862

121

128

1266

5000

1422

Vertical defect line. --Slaunger (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Info created by Peter Becker in 1889 - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Horst-schlaemma.

Frankfurt panorama of the 17th century, 1889 watercolour by Peter Becker featuring the Alte Brücke.
Mylius said: It actually is an artist's impression from 1889 of Frankfurt (its suburbia Sachsenhausen respectively) as it looked like around 1600. But he didn't add any imagination, every single object that can be seen (i.e. the bridge tower, the bridge, the fortification, most of the buildings) is taken from historical descriptions / depictions of that time. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Strong support, well done scanned original. Rare, valued and interesting --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, so many things to look at. --Cayambe (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nikopol (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Conditional oppose Very nice, except for peculiarly looking horizontal and vertical defect lines (see annotations). Could this be retouched, please. If so, I am ready to support. I noticed a significant CCW tilt of the tower to the left. This may be there in the orginal as well. Is it possible to verify that? Just looks peculiar because other man made structures seem to have almost perfect vertical lines. --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Info It seems a matter of the original, as it's quite a big piece of work. For further information Mylius might help. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I too think that restoration is not necessary. This appearance has a historical value. And I support as is this image --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Question This looks very bright for a watercolor of its age. No notes on the file hosting page of whether this is a restored/edited file. Please explain? Durova (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Of course it's restored and edited, as Mylius always does. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Undocumented restoration. Also no link to unaltered file. Please correct the omissions. Also technical shortcoming in color balance: right third has excessive red. Durova (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Scewing (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Durova. Blurpeace 08:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical