Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg

File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 21:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg

•  Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Probably the most popular railway viaduct in Switzerland, the Landwasser Viaduct of the Albula Railway. Note the locomotive; the advertisement on it depicts this very viaduct!
•  Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I wish there had been more snow, but well, can't have everything... --Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not too excited by the dark background. The Tunnel is barely visible. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Question How is it that the background is almost black, yet the bridge and train look like they are in broad daylight? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a gorge, look a at Google Maps. Or here. At a certain time of day the sunlight does not hit the gorge wall anymore. --Dschwen (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Oppose Lots of value but I dont like the hard contrast of the shadows in the background plus the composition is a bit to general for my taste. We already have a nice featured picture of this building. Admittedly the existing FP doesn't show the entire building but it has much nicer contrasts and a rousing composition.   • Richard • [®] • 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Changed my vote to oppose. Somehow it looks unreal - nothing which is to be accounted to the photographer but maybe it was the wrong daytime for the CCD.   • Richard • [®] • 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The hard contrast is exactly the part I like, it makes the building stand out from the background. Oh well. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like the contrast! --Citron (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- The composition is great (better than the existing FP imo) and the image quality good enough. FP for me. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kleuske (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support as per Alvesgaspar. Yann (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't like colours, nor contrast, nor composition. Nothing so outstanding in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support As per Alvesgaspar and other supporters. -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - MPF (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Great composition, much better than the current FP. Is a pitty the tunnel entrance is not lit. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, great contrast! --Aqwis (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very strong composition all around. Great work. Steven Walling 06:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yes of course. Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  是 -- Takabeg (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Memorino (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles