Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 17:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg

•  Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- —Blurred Lines 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1) Not enough wow. 2) The main object as stated in the image desccription is the pine forest, but that occupies a minority of the image, so I don't see the full picture of the "pine forest". 3) Urbanisation in the background. Makes the picture unnatural, when talking about "forests". (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arctic Kangaroo: Well, Christian said below that it changed the description to make it a better point for the picture. So, are you staying with your vote, or changing it? —Blurred Lines 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the nomination, I improved the description. The place is protected by the Conservatoire du littoral. This pine forest have the particularity to to be one of the closest of the coast in the southern France. In this picture you see also two important things : the omnipresent silhouette in the region of the Mount Saint-Clair and the vegetable carpet of Salicornia europaea which have the particularity to to grow on salty ground. --Christian Ferrer 19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I like the way the bridge runs very much and point 3 mentioned by AK (in the oppose vote) actually makes the image more valuable to me. --DXR (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Caecilius Mauß (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 08:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 12:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Tuxyso (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strong clockwise rotation. No description. --Kikos (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kikos. That bridge should have started in the corner. I think this is correctable though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just out of interest, I have examined the image in LR and with lines etc. and I do not find any convincing evidence for "strong tilts" when looking at verticals (there might be a minimal one, but a straight oppose based only on that is pretty harsh, imo). Surely the coastline is not reliable as indicator and I see a lot of pretty vertical lines. --DXR (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am convinced on your argument that this isn't titled. Must be an illusion created by the landscape. Also, I tried a couple of different crops and could not improve on this composition. What I would have liked would have required a higher perspective. Removing the oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks DXR, indeed I've tried to put the verticals straight. And if there is a tilt it is not obvious IMO, and I don't see it. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Given DXR's comment I opened the image in an editor and at full resolution it was very apparent there is no tilt with every vertical object perfectly perpendicular to the horizon. This is why I removed the oppose. I ask that Kikos consider doing the same. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose  B.p. 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --mathias K 05:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DimiTalen 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bottom half is good with the clean wooden path, regular patterns, lovely still reflection, but then the eye is carried up to the top and things peter out. The centre has a few trees, a hazy hill and then further over some kind of oil refinery. The scrub land and trees which occupy so much of the image don't in themselves make a strong enough subject -- perhaps the bog has flowering plants another time of the year. Possibly a better photo could have concentrated only on the path and its reflection closer up. Or have a group or couple walking on the path. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places