Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg

File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 22:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support There is some noise, but seeing the resolution, I hope you will accept it... -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. For a scan that's not sharp at full res, I accept that it was scanned perhaps too precisely and try to look at it at a reasonable size, 3000px in this case. It's pretty much sharp except for the building on the right. Nice fireworks but I can't have such an important element of the composition be visibly unsharp at 7 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Photo from 1980. Its good to see some of it. --Mile (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is bad also for 1980 --LivioAndronico talk 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per Mile. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good scene, and acceptable sharpness if downsized. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The resolution (7475px) is not remarkable since this is an analog photography, Simply the quality is not good and spectators are a bit distracting, imho. --Laitche (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Laitche Poco² 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 21:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

* Oppose For King --Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Striked --Cart (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Info Eligible for re-nomination due to due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018 --Cart (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)