Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Locatie, Lendevallei. Petgat 04.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Locatie, Lendevallei. Petgat 04.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 13:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created and uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - It's no secret that I love Dominicus' sensibility, and I think this photo with its wonderful reflections and gradations of light, reminiscent of Netherlandish landscape painting of yesteryear, is a great work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- question: ArionEstar are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
* Support See comment below. Mmmm... When is the next flight to this place leaving? :) w.carter-Talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Qualified support Lovely composition; clouds at upper right are a little overxposed ... this may be fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- question: Daniel Case are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Famberhorst: Yes; if I werern't I would have changed my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Small correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It actually might be too dark now; I'd split the difference. However, I would understand that your priority would be to address the concerns about the colors below. I don't see the problem - the colors look real to me. But that's beside the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It seems far too yellow for an image taken in the middle of the day. Are the colors ok? Kruusamägi (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- question: Kruusamägi are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Yes, that is better. Not enough wow for me to support the nomination but I see no reason to oppose. That's a fine image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment for me too --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- question: LivioAndronico are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Slightly less yellow. Could possibly turn back to the first version.
- Comment - I'm perfectly happy with this version, and I actually consider it the best of the three, providing that the colors are now accurate. You really should ping everyone, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Question: What is pinging?--Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's a "ping" template, but I would just put their usernames here, like so: Arion, W.carter, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Kruusamägi and LivioAndronico, are you OK with the new version of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Info The new version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Info Totally ok with me. And to add: 'Ping' is a Wiki-slang/jargong for the notice you get when another user mentions you on a page, other than your own, to get your attention like Ikan just did here. This is necessary when you alter an image during review so those who have already voted can say if they approve the new version as well. (There is a discussion about this on the talk page.) w.carter-Talk 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose very average image of nothing. Could be any puddle with any grass, in a very normal day... nothing wow, special... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ahem... it doesn't hurt to be polite even when you oppose to something. w.carter-Talk 16:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I see nothing impolite in the statement. And I feel quite the same (it’s a nice picture, a bit soft and noisy, some grass blades pixelated on the right side, I suspect oversharpening – all in all I don’t see an outstanding piece of photographic art here) but that has become quite normal. On FPC, we used to consider, "is this really one of the very best images on Commons?", now it seems to be rather "well, it’s not too bad, so I’ll support it" for many voters. Well, if this is the direction things develop here, I know I am free to leave. It’s just the FP star rapidly losing its meaning for me. --Kreuzschnabel 19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Different people respond differently to different photos. For example, there is a core constituency for macro photos with bokeh. I like some of them but have a lot less tolerance for unsharpness and especially vertiginous backgrounds than others. That doesn't make pictures I oppose "nothing" or cause the star to lose its meaning because others like photos I oppose. And some viewers don't respond to this kind of landscape photo the way I do. It sucks when, as has often happened, the photographer takes offense at opposition per se and posts petulant remarks, but I do think we should all, while expressing our opinions, try to be polite, and I realize there are cultural differences, as New Yorkers tend to be blunter than people from many other parts of the U.S. and my experience so far has been that Germans are much blunter than New Yorkers (not to mention French people, for whom etiquette tends to be quite important). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- W.carter hurt? I just presented that this is a photo of "nothing" per dictionary "not anything", do not have a subject, and I reinforce this idea to made clear. Don't make this a soup opera. Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- No intention whatsoever to make this into a soap opera. Just have in mind that this is an international site and words and meanings are interpreted differently in different cultures so we all have to be very careful. A lot of peace to you too. w.carter-Talk 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sure Famberhorst (ping ) --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose 100% with Kreuzschnabel, even if Rodrigo maybe forgot that there is a person who took the picture...--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I think this nomination has supported to many transformations since the beginning of the evaluation process, per the debate mentionned above.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- A person who took a photo of nothing. Don't have a focal point, a subject, don't make a storm in a glass of water. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- OpposeThis is not any of the original two versions I voted for. It has lost some of its fairy tale glow and become a more ordinary photo for me. Even if I liked this version I would withdraw my support just because of all the significant changes being done with the photo during the voting process. It is simply too confusing. w.carter-Talk 21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I see a nice image but nothing outstanding here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good illustration of a biome; nice composition and so on. The wow for me comes mainly from the clouds. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but mid-day light isn't appealing. And photo is a bit overprocessed (plants are looking unnatural on the background). --Ivar (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)