Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Georgenstein Ostufer.jpg

File:Georgenstein Ostufer.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2012 at 14:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Georgenstein Ostufer.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Georgenstein Ostufer.jpg

•  Info c/u/n by   • Richard • [®] • 14:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Info Georgenstein at river Isar, seen by eastern riverbank. On top of the rock you can see the wayside shrine of Heiliger Georg (Saint George). On the botton you can the the training wall which leads to the rock.
•  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 14:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Absolutely stunningly landscape, but spoilt by the shrine, which looks like a feather duster or an advertisement for a local hostelry. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

??? I always thought i'm taking pictures for an Encyclopedia. I don't understand why a cultural artifact is disturbing here. But if you like making Commons the place to cellebrate the hottest and cheesiest Holiday-Pictures, go on.   • Richard • [®] • 15:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Info Apologies to Richard, but my opposition is based on personal taste only: it is the cultural artifact (the shrine) that seems out of place. Criticism against the quality of the photograph (or the photographer) is not intended. Good luck with the nomination. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Absolutely stunning landscape. Period (to me).--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting! -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Richard, schön, dass Du wieder hier bist. Als Wikipedia-Autor musste ich auch den grundlegenden Satz von wikimedia commons lernen: Commons is not Wikipedia. No Wow ist eben zuweilen gewichtiger als der enzyklopädische Wert eines einwandfreien Bildes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Common is not Wikipedia; but both are part of Wikimedia. A perfect work is appreciated in both places. But if a compromise is in need, Commons compromises on EV whereas Wikipedia compromises on Wow/quality (IMHO). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Never forget this, my friends: there IS no Wikipedia. There ARE different WikipediaS, with different rules and ways. For instance, there is not FP "contest" in the french WP (and I think it is good, IMO...). So as for for me, there is no comparison possible. Remember that for a lot of people here, only "Commons" is international...--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• But English Wikipedia is #6 at [1] today; where is Commons? Yes; Commons is a strong back end for several projects including Wikipedia(s). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --sfu (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places