Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laufwasserkraftwerk Muehltal.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Laufwasserkraftwerk Muehltal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 23:21:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Additional informations added to to the image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only viewer we have --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The Wide image template is also useful, for example you can use it in your user subpages, of course it is more useful for wider panoramas, it's just an idea.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. I've put the template on my sandbox for now :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
No, I would say It's rather a tad underexposed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But holiday pictures are ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday pictures are not necessarily FP material and the same applies to non-holiday pictures. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support certainly more relevant than an oversaturated field. Beautiful composition, nice quality. --Dschwen (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- nice panorama of a power plant, but it's nothing special, & a FP needs to be. i'm not clear why the subject merited the effort; is there something unique, or notable about this facility? i've walked past thousands of simillar, unremarkable buildings in DE, with & without waterfrontage. as re composition: it's not really well balanced left to right; the water side is nicely done, but the trees & equipment on the left neither contrast, nor balance the water particularly well. the cut-off line on the far left is somewhat awkward too. (also the roof pattern is coming out messy on my (lcd) monitor, in anything other than max size?) panoramas are tricky to do as a balanced whole, but that's another reason i don't see this as an FP. it's very nice work on a technical level; very crisp in max res, well stitched together, seams all covered up. wmc should have a better organized system of merits, including technical categories; i would support this for an award for "technical skill, panorama", but it's not really an FP image. who would want to see this as a potd, much less poty? who would care enough about, or be interested enough in the subject, to click it & enlarge? the author seems to have quite a fanbase on wmc, but i don't think this particular image merits all the enthusiasm, sorry. Lx 121 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Don't forget, everyone sees things differently. While you may consider it just a building, others may percieve something else entirely. I personally enjoy it, but the subject hasn't totally drawn me in. I realise that it has no obvious flaws, and while it may not 'turn me on' it may do so for others, so I don't oppose it. In the end, people will vote how they will, based on whether they like the image, and if it it fulfills their own perceptions as to what 'technical quality' is. It's not a perfect system, and it never will be. But such is the consequence of being born into this chaotic world. Welcome to Commons, make sure you keep your sanity and thick skin firmly in place at all times. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - bravo! --Pudelek (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Laufwasserkraftwerk_Muehltal.jpg&oldid=20878113"