Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sergels torg 2015 02.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Sergels torg 2015 02.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 10:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Sergels torg, the the most central public square in Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)- Support --XRay talk 11:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose nice colors, but too much perspective distortion at the corners, see for example the trash can near the bottom right corner. --Pine✉ 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment You need a extreme wide-angel lens to capture this view, and all wide-angel lenses have distortion. No central part of the image is affected by distortion. No central part of the image is affected by distortion, only less relevant far corners.--ArildV (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support very nice colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support very nice compose and Colors--NoRud (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per NoRud, very well-composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, just a traffic scene. The ghostly persons are disturbing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support WOW for me --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose A "blue hour" shot is not enough for making a FP by itself. I'm per Uoeai1.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with "just a traffic" scene. It is a the most central public square, and a well know and controversial exemple of post-war architecture and urban planning. The picture is taken from the best possible position, have great educational value (show in high resolution and quality the square with the surrounding buildings), it is an important and famous place (the most central and most famous square in a capital city). To dismiss it as "just a traffic scene" with the with the only value being "a blue hour shot" is not fair imo. --ArildV (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if my words were too hard. I did not want tohurt you.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Jebulon. No problem, I tried to explain why I, in this specific case, didn't agree with you. I have always known you as a serious and careful reviewer. Best regards --ArildV (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if my words were too hard. I did not want tohurt you.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with "just a traffic" scene. It is a the most central public square, and a well know and controversial exemple of post-war architecture and urban planning. The picture is taken from the best possible position, have great educational value (show in high resolution and quality the square with the surrounding buildings), it is an important and famous place (the most central and most famous square in a capital city). To dismiss it as "just a traffic scene" with the with the only value being "a blue hour shot" is not fair imo. --ArildV (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I just do not find the composition interesting enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Nice photo and right time. It's also interesting for me, the twilight starts one hour earlier than in Moscow. --Brateevsky {talk} 11:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
