Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg

File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg

•  Info Building in Henriksdalshamnen, Södra Hammarbyhamnen, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment nice picture, but what is the EV? Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Documentation of a newly built area.
  • Documentation of a current trend in Europe (and part of the world), rebuilding our industrial urban places
  • It is the last phase of a massive urban development project that has been ongoing for 20 years, and it is relevant to show how architecture has changed in the project over time.
  • Designed by a relevant architecture firm sv:AIX_Arkitekter
  • Commons is not just about documenting churches and old houses, we create a unique photo archive of contemporary life and development. Today, we are delighted when we find old pictures that show how cities looked like then.--ArildV (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• OK,  Support if you add it to an article. Tomer T (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done--ArildV (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support! -- MJJR (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nice and well done ! Seems to have no volume, only a facade. Strange.--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I prefer the more human activity here. JKadavoor Jee 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- A nice photo, correct and clean. But not special enough for FP imo. You should have left some convergenge in the verticals, this way it seems that the building is larger on the top than it is on the bottom. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar that the vertical-perspective-correction has made the building look odd. Sometimes the only way to get a building looking right is just to get further away. Colin (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your comments.
  • People here asking for perfect straight lines, with less perspective correction, people will oppose and say "need perspective correction".
  • As Colin points out, you can go further away. But there is a problem, the buildings in the background will become more prominent if you do it (compare here File:Henriksdalshamnen February 2012d.jpg). And it would destroy an important part of the composition, to isolate the main object from the background,
  • --ArildV (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral The level of detail is impressive and worth to be feautured. But I think the crop, especially the large area of pure blue sky and the top, is not optimal (see crop suggestion in notes). I would support a different crop. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment and suggestion. I uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Great! --Tuxyso (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)