Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpg

File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpg

•  Info created by Michal Osmenda - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- russavia (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support-- VolodymyrF 14:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting composition but rather poor DoF, big parts are too blurry. --A.Savin 21:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support not the better DoF, true, but still worth FP for me (after all the part that matters - the rose - is clear and sharp) Béria Lima ^msg 05:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  strong oppose I see no reason why this should be FP. Picture has some technial issues (sharpness, DoF, tilted horizon). I do not like the compositional idea. But my main point: I am not convinced that such an artistic interpretation "yellow rose on rail track" is appropriate for this awful place (color-black editing especially with flowers is ofter used for wedding photography). --Tuxyso (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sentimental pictures are easy to get featured neglecting all technical merits. JKadavoor Jee 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose selective colouring is rarely a good idea and in this case the presence of other items of the track makes it look even more contrived.Geni (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Tonchino 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support DingirXul (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)