Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg

File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 18:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg

•  Info created by Eric Hill, uploaded by Pete Tillman, nominated by Maedin
•  Info This is almost certainly Papaver rhoeas, the common or field poppy. However, as I'm not 100% certain of the species, I haven't marked it as such in the file description. Please remember that species identification is not an element of the featured picture criteria.
•  Support —Maedin\^talk 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much colour noise IMHO, and images should not be framed. -- H005 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't notice the border! Oops, :) I've removed it now. I also used Noiseware Professional to fix up the noise a bit. It may not be enough to change your mind, but hopefully an improvement nonetheless. Maedin\^talk 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Noise is ok now, I don't mind the DOF very much, the "back lighting" I even find very positive, just the halos are a bit disturbing. -- H005 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose back lighting --Leafnode✉ 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, beautiful light, but the out-of-focus flowers are too disturbing. --Aqwis (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - beautiful. DOF doesn't bother me too much. The only relevant downside to me is the tight crop at left. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice lighting. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi kallerna, I noticed that you very often oppose a nomination by just saying "poor quality". I hope you don't bother me telling you that I believe that, except for really obvious cases, it should be a courtesy to the nominator to be a bit more specific. -- H005 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I know, but in some cases these's just too many problems to point out. The problems are too obvious. —kallerna™ 12:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree with kallerna, there are flaws. I just decided that other aspects of the photograph outweighed the technical inferiorities. I appreciate that kallerna didn't really need to embellish in this case. Maedin\^talk 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Worth pointing out to anyone here that some who are here are not as experienced as others and may well wish to learn about their errors so it is helpful/courteous to comment fully IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I don´t like the halos, but otherwise the image is very nice. Nikopol (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Am I the only one who doesn't like the left crop? --Pjt56 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I think there is no problem. --.dsm. 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Leafnode -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)