Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De Heining gemaal bij Marrum 14-08-2023. (actm.) 07.jpg

File:De Heining gemaal bij Marrum 14-08-2023. (actm.) 07.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2023 at 04:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:De Heining gemaal bij Marrum 14-08-2023. (actm.) 07.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De Heining gemaal bij Marrum 14-08-2023. (actm.) 07.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines The Netherlands.
•  Info De Heining pumping station (Marrum) Detail of pumping station 'De Heining' built in 2018. Discharge capacity of the pumping station is 252 m3 per minute. The modern pumping station is equipped with a fish passage.
  All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but just a QI for me. I see what you're doing here with the diagonal lines, but IMO there are too many busy details that the simplicity of the lines is lost. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• +1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Neutral No wow. ★ 18:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, No wow. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sorry, but nothing's special here. - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 15:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Extremely unimpressive image. 20 upper 07:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting enough as a QI, but not an amazing FP-level composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support Not the most compelling composition, but I'm surprised at the unusually harsh reviews. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I share your surprise. I don't agree that this is an "extremely unimpressive image." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Moral support It's a good photograph of a subject difficult to make pretty, and I like the details such as getting the name of the site in the composition. It's a shame the mantra of "above all, be polite" from the instructions at the top of the page seems to have gone out the window. BigDom (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too busy at the top. The subject in itself is not very attractive. (I thought they were stairs at first sight but at full size the structure is less appealing I'm afraid). And sorry but the background is just ugly. Overall I agree with KoH (whose review is fairly polite in my view). I completely support politeness and respect in general for the reviews, according to the guidelines, however we're here to review photographs, not people. This subjective opinion wants to be constructive. Thanks for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Ikan and Kestreltail. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BigDom (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)