Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg

File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 16:35:29

•  Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Not called the “golden hour” for nothing! →Diti the penguin — 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A beautiful, understated picture. -- JovanCormac 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - beautiful work at making important but ugly modern buildings worth looking at. I like the desaturation of the spit of land behind them too. Downtowngal (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically excellent, but the subject does not fascinate me in any way. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good image, but why nomination for FP? --Karel (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe because it meets the guidelines for FP? →Diti the penguin — 15:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  No. These are the requirements for QI, which it meets, d'accord. But an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor, and I'm completely missing that factor here. -- H005 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  See Downtowngal's comment above. -Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  "an FP is a QI with a "wow!" factor": From my experience, there is no consensus on that. Confusingly enough, while the Featured Pictures page states that FPs are "some of the finest pictures on Commons", it doesn't give an actual definition of what precisely makes a Featured Picture featured. While the so-called "wow-factor" is an oft-quoted criterion used internally by many voters, looking through the FP library (especially the non-photographic images) you will undoubtedly find many pictures totally lacking in "wow", yet having some particular quality that by itself justifies them being featured. In this case here, it could be as Downtowngal stated: The art of making an ugly building look beautiful. -- JovanCormac 10:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as H005. Personally, I do not fancy the GFDL-1.2 only license either, as this limits the images usefullness on Wikimedia projects. For instance it cannot be used on the German wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)