Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg

File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 12:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg

•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture is too dark to see the details. Laurent (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We need both kinds of pictures. We need the kind of pictures providing details on how one candle looks like, and pictures showing the global visual effect of theses candles, when they are actually used. If people traditionally use many candles together, we need a picture showing many candles together. Teofilo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that there are two large black areas in the two corners of the picture. Also, although the topic of the picture are the candles, it's not possible to see any one of them in full. They are all either hidden behind other candles or cut at the bottom of the picture. Laurent (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose The picture is too dark --82.176.109.255 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry did not log in --Sylvy d'Acoz (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ditto to Laurent and Acoz. And brightening it wouldn't help, as it would leave the lights blown. - MPF (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Too dark?? In the photo are candles. With the details... what do you want to see more? --Pudelek (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support yes night is darker than the day and we can't see as many details. But we need night pictures in order to report events that take place during the night. Teofilo (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Yes we need, and some of them (the best) are often considered good enough to reach FP status, as you will easily confirm with a quick browsing of the FP galleries. As for all the others, do you really believe that they loose their potential encyclopaedic value just because they were not promoted and run the risk of being deleted?...? I don't object when someone tries to make a point in a place like FPC (though some users very much do). But this place has a culture of its own, as well as a set of guidelines, which should be chechek carefully before trying to change the present status, especially when the attempts are made by someone not very familiarized with the process (yes, I read the crusade in Village pump against POTD) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very emotionally ... -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I don't like the composition which looks somehow random to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar - interesting but not FP to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^T · C 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)