Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg

File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
•  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Too much sharpening applied IMHO (Da sind schon unschöne Säume an Kontrastkanten zu sehen) but still outstanding enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And 8. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Conditional oppose The building is highly symmetric from left to right and the vantage point is right in the middle from left to right - good, but there is also a reflection plane in the water and it bothers me that this is a little off-centered in the vertical direction such that more sky is seen than reflection. It is sufficiently close to be centered that as an observer you would expect it was the compositional choice, but it is quite far from being so, making the composition a bit unbalanced. Another compositional choice could be to crop significantly more off the reflection, such that in the vertical direction the composition followed better a rule of thirds (sky - building - reflection). Since the water has ripples, the reflection and symmetry is not perfect anyway. With a different crop in the vertical direction, I am happy to reconsider.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Rainer Can you please be more patient with your nominations. I had to FPD some recently and you still have two other active nominations. I won't FPD this one because one of them is waiting on the bot to speedy promote -- but it is technically still active and always possible that someone might vote oppose as the nomination would normally have four days more to go. Wait till the FPC page has removed previous nominations so you only have two active at most at any time. Also remember that you need at least seven reviewers to get an FP, so please do your bit by reviewing other images too -- we need both positive and negative reviews. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Colin for clearing this up. I actually looked to see if one of the other nominations had been closed before I voted. I only assumed that since it had the automatic grey bot message, it was ok. Now I know that the result needs to be confirmed by someone (or voting period over). cart-Talk 21:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hallo, das man hier nur zwei Bilder gleichzeitig Nominieren darf, wusste ich nicht. Ich habe jetzt gewartet, bis eine von den ersten beiden Bilder den Hinweis bekommen hat, dass die Kandidatur beendet ist. Aber das war wohl noch zu früh. Beim nächsten Bild warte ich etwas länger. Ich bin hier bei FPD noch unerfahren, sorry. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Auf der Seite, auf der du deine Nominationen erstellt hast, steht oben „Please read the complete guidelines before nominating“ und weiter unten, unter „Featured picture candidate policy – General rules“, Punkt 11, steht das mit den maximal zwei Nominationen. In den FPD-Hinweisen, die deine überzähligen Kandidaten eingesackt haben, stand es auch. FPC ist mit manchmal 70 aktiven Kandidaten schon grenzwertig voll, deshalb ist das auch eine Rücksichtnahme auf die Voter, immerhin nimmt man sich hier mehr Zeit zum Beurteilen als auf QIC und formuliert Begründungen für Ablehnung (ich zumindest tue das) :-) --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass das überall in Englisch steht und ich nur Deutsch kann. Und wie die von mir zu viel begonennen Kandidaturen abgebrochen worden sind, wusste ich das dann, durch Google-Translate. Aber wie dann eines von den ersten beiden als beendet markiert worden ist, dachte ich, dass diese Kandidatur auch tatsächlich zu Ende ist. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Das ist nicht wahr. Sie können am oberen Rand der Seite, auf der "Deutsch" klicken und die übersetzte Seite und Informationen zu lesen. Dies ist eine internationale Website. Hier ist der Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder. Grüße -- cart-Talk 08:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, vielen Dank. Ich habe immer ganz oben auf Deutsch geklickt, aber da tut sich nichts. Jetzt habe ich es gefunden. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Please add english description, not everybody here can read german language. --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Iifar: : While I think an English description adds value and is helpful, I do not think it is a responsibility of the nominator to provide one. The nominator states clearly above in German regarding his confusion about the guidelines that Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass ... ich nur Deutsch kann. indicating the nominator is not capable of providing an English description. I do not think that it should be a requirement to write well in English to nominate a picture for FPC, it would be an unreasonable requirement for our non-English speaking users. I would encourage though, that some of our many many German-speaking reviewers, who are also proficient in written English will help draft an English description. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment There is always a possibility to ask someone and I'm sure somebody is willing to help with the translation. --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done with the usual help from Google. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So you did that With a Little Help from Your Friend. ;) cart-Talk 19:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is, however, about as sharpened as it can be without being oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 
•  Support It's a quite typical FP :) --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 09:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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