Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje en Reserva Nacional Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 51-56 PAN.JPG

File:Paisaje en Reserva Nacional Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 51-56 PAN.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 19:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje en Reserva Nacional Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 51-56 PAN.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje en Reserva Nacional Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 51-56 PAN.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Peru
•  Info Panorama view of Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve, Arequipa, Peru. c/u/n by me, Poco² 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good QI with low wow factor. Imho drawbacks are: midday light, empty sky, horizon almost in the center of the frame, cropped gravel road on the right, interesting mountains too far away. --Ivar (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ivar, I'm afraid. Sorry. And on top, I'm never too keen on a same road showing as two parallel ones. That is very misleading. - Benh (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral Beautiful, but a little bit samey. All the landscape is really quite similar, and I think you've done so many Peruvian or other South American panoramas that we can afford to be a little discriminating about the ones we choose to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ivar, -- Karelj (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment and btw, this shouldn't even be a QI. The horizon is curved, like what we find on non-carefully shot smartphone panoramas - Benh (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination and btw, Benh, I've improving the perspective. If you still believe that it's below the QI bar, remove the QI stamp. I'd then consider to work on it again and renominate it for QI again. Regarding your comment "The horizon is curved, like what we find on non-carefully shot smartphone panoramas". That's definitely below the belt. Please, keept those comments for you in the feature, there are definitely other ways to communicate here without being disrespectful to the author. Thank you. Poco² 19:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• No it's not mine to remove the QI thing. And no I'll comment as I feel as long as my comment is factual. If you don't like correct comments, don't post your pictures here. Again what is disrespectful is posting a picture here with such glaring error, let alone uploading it to Commons. - Benh (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's like talking to a wall. Is not about the content but the package. You talk like only solid FPs should be allowed to upload on Commons. You'd have a lot of fun reviewing recent unploads. Poco² 07:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have much more fun when a nom is carefully thought about before crashing here. Not necessarily because it's going to pass. But this I've told you a zillion times and... it's like talking to a wall. - Benh (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• With the charm of your judgements you will talk to a lot of walls :) Poco² 15:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)