Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lifting hook with a safety latch hanging from a bridge crane.jpg

File:Lifting hook with a safety latch hanging from a bridge crane.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 14:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lifting hook with a safety latch hanging from a bridge crane.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lifting hook with a safety latch hanging from a bridge crane.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
•  Info The workshop where I saw this was very dark, with the faint winter light comming through small windows at one end of the hall. This made all the tools look rather sinister. At first I thought about keeping the photo "Batcave dark", but I don't think FPC is ready for that kind of artistry yet. ;) So, I settled for only a mildly sinister look. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not at all good and wow for me. But good try. The image is very dull and and position is not at all good. --Shriheeran (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Au contraire, this photo is certainly good! I think some people will find it great, too. I appreciate it for what it is, but it doesn't greatly inspire me. It's a very high-quality photo of a lifting hook, and for me, a QI and (if nominated) a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very delicate lightning and texture. I like this rough looking, sinister and worn lifting hook. It has wow for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition I like the diagonal lines in the background, which helps frame the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• That door was really a very lucky coincidence. :) I think it looks slightly art deco. cart-Talk 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I like it. Per Slaunger. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Seems too dark though; can it be brightened a little? -- Thennicke (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Any photo can be brightened but then you'd loose the contrast that gives this its special look and end up with yet another catalogue photo. This is a very bright version of how the whole thing looked IRL and what attracted me to it. --cart-Talk 09:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• It looks much better now IMO. If we were showing things as they look IRL this would probably be close to black, but that's not a particularly effective strategy in this medium :) -- Thennicke (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Totally agree, there is a time and place for everything and that's why I adjusted it. (But it is fun to push the boundaries once in a while. ^^) --cart-Talk 11:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support If you would put some more chain inside would feel better. --Mile (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dark and boring. Has not been submitted as QIC. Charles (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a requirement for FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, but it should be encouraged to filter out some of the worst candidates (see this page!). This one is absolutely fine for QI. There are naturally some images that are excellent FPC but wouldn't pass the purely technically-oriented standards of QI. Charles (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the photo was submitted to QIC the day before it was nominated here. When you open a file and scroll down to "File usage on Commons" you can check if it is submitted to QIC or not. Also related: Most new FPC nominators have never heard of QIC (I was one of them) before getting their asses kicked here. Which is why I think we should be more tolerant toward new nominators having a first attempt here. FP is widely advertised on all Wiki projects while QI is more obscure. How on earth do you expect photographers to want to improve their abilities and come back here later, if all they get is a brutal rejection and a stern reprimand to go through a process they have no knowledge about. --cart-Talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support It really caught my eye once I saw it when scrolling down the FPC page. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Love the detail on the hook. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The composition with the two lines in the BG pointing downward and the highlights on the hook do it for me. – Lucas^T 08:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers --Karelj (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support WClarke (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose, even if just "per User" when you agree with User's remarks – Lucas^T 15:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't understand the featurability of this one. Good quality, but not much IMHO, sorry, Poco² 19:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)