Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg

File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 23:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
•  Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

* Support - Moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support INeverCry 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Now that's a wow! w.carter-Talk 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote to  Neutral since I don't know what's going on here. w.carter-Talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see my contribution on Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Alteration_of_candidates_through_voting_period --Kreuzschnabel 16:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Foto um pouco velha, mas tá valendo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Per users above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Blunt, shoddy cutout to get the background blurred (see edge of hair). Sorry but this is so obvious even in the preview! How this got through QI I cannot imagine. I don’t fancy the composition either. Portrait orientation showing more of the statue would have been better. --Kreuzschnabel 08:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done I reverted to original version, however, I'm not sure if the cut is ok. Please, let me know if it's ok for you. --The Photographer (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above "shoddy cutout to get the background blurred", a photomontage would produce the same effect Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Reverted at 15:37, 17. Jul. 2016. Please do not alter nominated images through voting period without strong reason! This is very bad practice IMHO, compromising any comment/voting given before. Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, w.carter, ArionEstar, please reconsider your voting now. Candidate has been replaced by a very commonplace shot. And please comment on my proposal on the talk page – thx! --Kreuzschnabel 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Due to the picture itself, and the going on nomination process.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to the process, but I would also oppose a feature for this picture. I think it's fine to offer alternatives or make edits within reason, but this is too radical an edit to make during the nomination process and should require withdrawal and then renomination of the version you would want considered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the radical changes to the picture made above, noted in !votes

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) 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)