Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abstract streaks of a building at night.jpg

File:Abstract streaks of a building at night.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 03:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Abstract streaks of a building at night.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abstract streaks of a building at night.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture (there may be something else more appropriate)
•  Info All by WClarke -- WClarke (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- I've been experimenting with more abstract photography lately, which before now I've kept off Commons, though think I'm starting to make some of my more interesting work, and would be open to commentary. Just wanted to bring something different, even if it sees opposition. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose artificial, nothing special, simply blurred and out of scope for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I like good abstract art, but this feels random to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan --cart-Talk 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support bold nomination that deserves support! The black background's a bit too dominating though. Besides: the nom is - of course - not out of scope as the image could help illustrate abstract photography at the very least. But Commons is/should be much more than a simple repository for the wiki world... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan and cart; also, image is kind of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I find the composition a bit strange with that … uhm … pillar of lights more or less in the centre. It does indeed have some kind of randomness about it, that disturbs me, even makes me feel a bit uneasy. Counter-acting this, there are repeating patterns that remind me of the benzene rings found in organic chemistry or maybe those fancy graphene nanoribbons. Or maybe just a honeycomb. I could go on with associations like this for a while, but the bottom line is that this is one of the rare images that makes my mind wander around, makes me think, makes me feel … well … things. Actually, it is the first FP candidate in a long time I might print and hang on my wall. Both versions. I'd very much like to see more nominations like this at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternate version

•  Support I also inverted the image and set it to grayscale, and thought the results were very nice and wanted to share it. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose artificial, nothing special, simply blurred and out of scope for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose on the same basis as stated above. I do think some abstract photography should be featured, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan --cart-Talk 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support see above. --El Grafo (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--The Photographer 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC))