Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg

File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg, not featured

•  Info the oldest and highest (1.719m) Walsersiedlung in Vorarlberg
• all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I usually tend not to wote on panoramas because I feel to unexperienced to evaluate them but this one is just to painfully beautiful not to support. --Korall (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, seems underexposed to me. --Aqwis (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But it isn't, if you look at the histogram. →Diti the penguin — 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some areas of the picture are definitely at least half a stop underexposed. --Ernie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info – I took myself the liberty to slightly change the blackpoint of the picture. --Ernie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment please upload as separate version. This version had votes already. Lycaon (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp, beautiful. Yann (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a real nice panorama, but IMO it lacks a certain wow that would make it featured. Sorry. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is better! →Diti the penguin — 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per NEUROtiker, also it doesn't seem to be quite as crisp as the author's usual ones. -- JovanCormac 08:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – per JovanCormac. I have such a slow Internet connection – it takes me like half an hour to upload the 9MB version again and I don't think it is worth the effort. --Ernie (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, not featured

•  Info I've uploaded a modified version. I have done a tonal value correction and a light colour boost. --Simonizer (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose While the colors are more friendly now, detail has been lost in light areas, notably the church (windows). Also, the sharpness problems persist. -- JovanCormac 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Jovan is right about the increase of highlights, but those are really just small parts of the image. The reason why I oppose is that it still does not catch me as one of Wikimedia's finest. --Ernie (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support sieht besser aus --Böhringer (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Defenitly a good picture, but it`s missing that last step to really make it stand out. Maybe a deeper color saturation would make it more eye-catching. Per Ernie. --S23678 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)