Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MGM Grand, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 14.jpg

File:MGM Grand, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2013 at 14:35:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:MGM Grand, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 14.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MGM Grand, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 14.jpg

•  Info Casino resort MGM Grand, Macau. All by me, Poco² 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support nice colours and reflections. --Kadellar (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Question Could you add the location, please? --Kadellar (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

   Done, both, object and photographer location, Poco² 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• The motive has definitely a lot of "Wow inside", quality and light is at a high level, but  Question why did you crop the bottom? For me the crop is a bit unfortunate that way. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  Why? because it is too ordinary and bussy, cars, signs and so on. In my opinion it loses its magic. If you don't believe me, I can upload the uncropped version, but only for information, I wouldn't change this nomination. Poco² 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with "believing" - I do not know the location and in most cases it is better to ground an architecture shot (besides it is a tele detail shot) otherwise ones get the impression that something is missing. It would be interesting to see the whole location and I look forward to an uncropped version just for informational purposes. BTW: I have NOT opposed but only asked --Tuxyso (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here you are (I have many other pictures that I will upload when I get time, the sortiment is generous, I also have several with 3 traffic lanes :)). BTW, I didn't affirm that you oppose. Poco² 18:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Nice artful rendition of an artful object. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Good light! --P.Lindgren (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support You did this on a day trip from Hong Kong before Wikimania, I presume? Makes me think I should have gone over there myself. Oh yes, it's a great pic. Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad composition (or bad croping). Whole building will be better. --Kikos (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  Hi! did you follow the discussion above with Tuxyso? After several attempts (currently with no reliable Internet conexion) I could update 3 additional pictures of the building that show more: [1] [2] [3]. As already said, in my opinion not better. Poco² 15:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment IMO this one [4] is much better --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I was never really convinced of this photo. The example of Christian (also by Diego) shows that there is a much better perspective. The problem with the nominee is that the crop is imho not audacious enough. At the bottom it looks a bit random to me. If you had cropped tighter without visible elements from the ground you could have accentuated the artistic structure of the building in a better way. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with Christian Ferrer. The version with uncropped bottom is better. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer this version. — TintoMeches, 12:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support—  ℳ₪Zaplotnik  21:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Question What is the FoP situation in Macau? --99of9 (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

Ok, guys, so it be, new alternative below Poco² 10:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support this is better, maybe it needs some cloning on the right (lamp) --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment The reflections of the other picture are much more lively, this one is duller. I find the other one has a good composition, it shows the coloured parts of the building (this one showing the whole building might be better, but both are good imo). I agree with Ivar about the street lamp, it's disturbing. --Kadellar (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  ...gone! Poco² 13:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  ...and regarding the image being a bit duller, I agree with you. I improved it giving it a bit more contrast and a bit more of light. If I may also express my opinion: the reflexions here are not as nice as at the other one (due to the cloudes, although the gap between both pictures is only 2 minutes), I don't like the road and I am not fan of the shadow on it. That being said, it is a nice picture, as well. Poco² 03:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support For me it's this one without hesitation, it's a more valued image with this centring, but it's also true that the quality is a bit better on the first --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - even though the reflections are not as nice, I definitely prefer this one. --— Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

The chosen alternative is: File:MGM Grand, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 14.jpg