Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg

File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by User:Chensiyuan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Extraordinary for 2009, I think, and a thing of awe to me by current standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I wish the clouds were not cut on the top, but this is still good enough for an FA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral chromatic aberration (see notes) --The Photographer 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Chensiyuan, would you like to try tackling that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support nice Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now - the CAs are too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch 15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Serious technical problems. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but not excellent . Too many problems for an excellent vote. Je-str (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose until the technical problems are fixed. Huge wow factor though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King and Ivar. The CA alone is so egregious that I didn't even bother to look at the noted cloning problems. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: I would advise you just use the "I withdraw my nomination" tag (search other nomiantions for an example code snippet) which closes the voting and renominate the image (see the rules), which is a cleaner process than making all the users above reevaluate their votes. – Lucas 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Withdrawn. I think Chensiyuan is offline. If the problems with the photo that are noted above are eventually corrected, it could be nominated at a later date. For now, there are other photos I could nominate. Thanks for your votes and your eyes, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 17:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)