Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steel tree - with utensils.jpg

File:Steel tree - with utensils.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 18:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Steel tree - with utensils.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steel tree - with utensils.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Piotr Bart -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - Cool motif, but Eatcha, could you include the rest of the tree that's unfortunately cut off on the left side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment -- I am overwriting it with a different Image which has the full tree, I actually have about 5 images of this so-called tree. EATCHA (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- EATCHA (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - OK, I'm sorry, but I'm seeing major quality problems, such as to the right of the tree. The right crop is problematic, but that could be changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose: boring composition with framing issues on the right hand side. Major CAs on the artwork against the sky, visile even in thumbnails. Quite low pixel level detail. – Lucas 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Major quality problems are present. --BoothSift 23:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above. Again, I would encourage the author to shoot in RAW. A Canon 1500D/2000D is not a bad camera and shouldn't be producing such low pixel-level detail, and I suspect it's a consequence of the camera's own processing (perhaps too strong noise reduction) applied to the JPEGs. Perhaps if the photographer could take control of processing themselves, they could get better results from the camera. Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I was biased to support it, it's not even a QI. EATCHA (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  EATCHA The subject has indeed FP potential. If you shoot it again with a more interesting lighting (z.B. golden hour), a more generous crop and with higher quality (this version is tilted, lacks sharpness, has CA and requires perspective correction) it could be a solid FP IMHO --Poco² 11:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  Poco a poco, I am planing to do so, maybe in next 6-7 weeks. EATCHA (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the only supporter other than the nominator has changed to oppose and it is unlikely to gain enough support in the wake of that

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)