Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPG

File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info View of the ancient houses of Machu Picchu houses, Urubamba Province, Cusco Region, today Peru. The 15th-century Inca citadel, abandoned one century later, is situated in the Sacred Valley on a mountain ridge 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level. All by me, Poco² 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice clean shot with great detail. Atsme 📞 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent, it can't be lack --The Photographer 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong support A fresh look at a familiar subject; considering the cliché view from the Inca Trail so predominates, it's almost like I've never seen this before. I particularly like the bushed tourists—been there (well, not exactly, but that sort of place), done that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks tilted. The people aren't standing/sitting straight. Suggest nearly 2° rotation and a little vertical perspective correction may help. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Seconding the tilt argument. I doesn't need as much as 2° (ccw) but def can use 1°+. Indifferent on the perspective correction though. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  Colin, KennyOMG: I applied a tilt. Poco² 20:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support now. I'm curious, any specific reason why you picked the original crop as it seems there's more of this image that was cut? -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Kenny is Colin right, it look now much better than the cut version --The Photographer 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Colin is right" <-- I fixed it for you. ;) -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry KennyOMG I fixed the comment. Thanks for the Clarification --The Photographer 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad it also improved the crop, with the stairs leading in from the corner. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The funny think is that it was leveled as I took it, and then I applied a tilt (and therefore lost a piece of image), now there is more image and it isn't tilted. Good point :) Poco² 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for fixing the tilt -- Thennicke (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture