Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neumagen-Dhron, Mosel -- 2015 -- 7556.jpg

File:Neumagen-Dhron, Mosel -- 2015 -- 7556.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 05:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neumagen-Dhron, Mosel -- 2015 -- 7556.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neumagen-Dhron, Mosel -- 2015 -- 7556.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose A pretty landscape but not FP level. The foreground, in particular, is unattractive. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good impression of Mosel. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The Mosel is like that. --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Likewise, this reminds me of similar vistas in the Hudson Highlands near where I lve (although the mountains over the Hudson are still covered almost entirely in forest). I have no problem with the foliage in the front as it doesn't break the river surface plane. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support FP level sure--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. The landscape itself is nice. The foreground is not ideal, partly because it is in the shadow. A higher point of view would probably help, but I don't know how high the exisitng photo was taken. It's also a problem that the foreground obstructs the background towards the right edge of the frame, which is the direction in which the eye is guided by the composition. — Julian H.^✈ 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Simply composition issue... --Laitche (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose A very nice landscape, obvious QI, but no vibrations for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Foreground is too dark. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Jebulon. --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very beautfiul scene. It's particularly the foreground that lifts it above QI in my opinion. Anyways: XRay, I don't see any reason for using the FoP-template in this case. --Code (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I too like the foreground than the alt below. Jee 02:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good, but mostly per other opposers. I also miss a more side lighting. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative

• I've made nearly the same picture at nearly the same place (3 meters left) without the foreground; may be better with less water - I'll reduce the part with the water within the next days --XRay ^talk 19:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Part of water is now reduced. --XRay ^talk 05:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose as per my above comment - Benh (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 22:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)