Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 22:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support as a native Washingtonian. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutral leaning to support: very nice and useful (to me: this kind of landscape is unknown in Europe, I think), but clear parts look overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose quality so-so (but maybe good for 1992), a lot of heavy blown out and overexposed parts, composition not featured to me (e.g. tight crop at bottom, would be nice to see more at the right, top, left, ...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)- Oppose Barely above requirements in size, some overexposed part and tight framing of the tree at the bottom. The footpath is a "natural environment" killer IMO. - Benh (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Benh and kaʁstn. W.S. 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Has many overexposed parts -- Marmoulak (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you justify your oppose as courtesy to nominator ? - Benh (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Kinda like it, conflicted about the trail though. On one hand it makes me think this isn't natural, then I feel like it's a generic shot anyone could've taken. But I like the quality, this is framed well, the lighting is very good and it's a good tourist-y shot that kind of makes you feel like going on a hike IMO lol. I think it would be better if cropped on the left so the eye would be drawn toward the path instead of the tree, because looking at it now you look at the tree, then the path and it makes your spirit sink a little because you go from "Wow! What a wild, old tree!" to "Oh, a clearly man-made walkway. This setting must therefore be in some kind of park or botanic garden; Now I feel like the whole scenery could be imitation". At least if it were cropped my theory is that more emphasis on the trail changes the mood of this image to wonder of what is up ahead. One idea of mine (I would've liked to crop it [[::File:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.jpg - Cropped 2.jpg|more]] but it's below 2MP then). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) (here's the other one 'til the links get fixed.) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support nice film quality colors. Ggia (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose Dislike the composition and the overexposed areas are intolerable. But has a big illustrative value. --Gaendalf (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
