Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg

File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 23:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The area is closed. The place I took the images from was the only one that was opened on that street.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not care, just to share I am talking rhymes -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, and the composition is great. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version (but not the alternatives). Good quality, interesting picture. --Petritap (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support please be so kind as to add the metadata of your camera. --Peter Weis (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, stitching errors still very obvious (even in the thumbnail above), particularly in the road - MPF (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very realistic. Kooritza (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors visible in several places. Steven Walling 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stitching errors pointed out by MPF were fixed. In what places you see stitching errors, if I may ask?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear it has just resulted in the stitch being moved; the two source photos show the road in different angle and light conditions, and stitches can only be moved, not eliminated - MPF (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe that such an image should be opposed because of one hard to see stitching error on the road, so it be. Who cares.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it is conspicuous, it jumps out at you. If it was hard to see, I'd agree it couldn't be opposed for that, but it is easy to see. Sorry! Alt 1 below is better in that respect, there's nothing so obvious there. - MPF (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support yes there are several (minor!!) stitching errors, but the overall quality and the very high value make this picture just awesome imo! --mathias K 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support i agree with Mathias. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Great picture of a hard to get subject - amazing –hover Fly | chat? 12:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Info A wider view. The license plate of not burn car was blurred to protect a privacy of a driver. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version is better (see comments above re stitching) - MPF (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt1 too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically, this one is just as good, however, I prefer the first one. The cut-off car on the left makes you want to see more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition: I don't like the cut-off vehicle at the left end. Jonathunder (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info A wider view yet. The license plates of the cars were blurred to protect a privacy of drivers. I tried to capture a more or less complete image of one street. There are a few streets like those.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --I think this one is much better than the two others: the shrinked sight of the first ones makes them impersonal, timeless and placeless; it could be in any country and be the consequence of any event, first in mind, wartime. This larger view brings a valuable journalistic dimension, making it more interesting than the others. Can you correct the perspective at the left the same way it is at the right? Sting (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the wide view, which gives context, but the tilted angle at the left is distracting. If that can't be corrected, I would suggest cropping just to the right of the tall pole. Also, does the license plate on the marked police vehicle need to be fully masked? I understand why this was done on the other vehicles, and it is less noticable on those. Overall, this is a fascinating scene and I'm sure there is a featured picture here. Jonathunder (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made yet another panorama File:Devastation in San Bruno 10.jpg. I believe perspective on the right is better now. I do not know how to fix perspective myself, but I will ask Dschwen. Maybe he'll be willing to help, if I email him originals. About police car. I do not know. I asked the officer, if it was OK to upload an image of him on the NET, and he said it was, but I have never asked about the license plate of his car. BTW he was a very nice man. When I just came, his car was parked in the middle of the road, just in front of the burn cars. I asked him how long he was going to stay like that, and he said "Whole day", but he moved his car to the left, when I explained to him that it was closing my view.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 3[edit]

Dschwen kindly agreed to work on Alt2. In a meantime here's one more panorama.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four alts! That's got to be a record! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a few more, but I believe I'll stop for now. I was overwhelmed, when I looked at that place, and I wanted to describe this feeling with my images. I have never seen anything like that before.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- According to the rules this is a new nomination, not a new version of the previous picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that a number of alternatives are limited?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no limit for the number of alternatives allowed: I think what Alvesgaspar means is that for nomination a to be considered an alternative to nomination b, nomination a has to be a different version of the same picture presented in nomination b. As it says in the general rules, "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version." Thus, if a picture is not a different version of a picture, it should be considered a new nomination, not an alternative. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure about that. Let's say I would like a few similar images to be reviewed, but only one of them promoted. It is better to review them all at the same time. In that case reviewers see all the versions together and could choose the one they like the best. If I am to nominate them as a separate nominations, a few similar images could get promoted potentially. Thank you, Kevin, for responding my question. I wish Alvesgaspar explained to me what he meant too, but that's OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- I say again: according to the new rules only different versions of the same picture can be considered as alternatives in a given nomination. Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. At this moment, Mbz1 has 4 different active nominations. Please choose which are to be withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version.", but unless I am missing something nowhere it is said that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" and that I cannot add a different image as alternative, if I wish to. If there was such a rule, it would have been a stupid one. If I am missing something, may I please ask you to be so kind and to quote the exact rule?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to urge everybody to go here and voice their interpretation of the rules in question. Thanks. --Petritap (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

The chosen alternative is: File:Devastation_in_San_Bruno.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg

Contents