Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Hans-Pruscha-Weg 5 Parkhotel 18112015 9110.jpg

File:Poertschach Hans-Pruscha-Weg 5 Parkhotel 18112015 9110.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2016 at 08:44:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Hans-Pruscha-Weg 5 Parkhotel 18112015 9110.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Hans-Pruscha-Weg 5 Parkhotel 18112015 9110.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Not my favorite style of architecture, but one probably couldn't have taken a cheerier photo of it. I would have loved to have seen more of the tree to the hotel's right, at the expense of some of the more distant trees on the left, but opposing the photo on that basis would be unduly nitpicky and also inappropriate, as I don't actually even know what it looks like further right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, Ikan, for your specific comment and promotion. It just looks like this. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for showing me that. So it really wasn't important to show what was further to the right, as Hubertl said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support good composition from my most hated building at the Wörthersee. The open space on the left is absolutely correct.--Hubertl 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, Hubertl. I one hundred percent agree with the contents of your comments. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks Hans, after the content I will improve the form of my comments now! --Hubertl 10:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment How are you going to improve the already perfect form of your comments? I wonder. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support As I have found, buildings that architecture enthusiasts hate the most often make excellent subjects for photographers. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Nice composition. Pity about the shadows in the foreground, but they don't interfere with the overall quality of the picture. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• {{o}} The dark shadows in the foreground are distracting and the positioning of the building isn't quite right somehow. Try taking a 16:9 crop to remove the bottom (but keeping the other three sides) and I think this resolves both the shadows and considerably improves the composition. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)  Support Now. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks, Colin, for your valuable hints. I cropped the image leaving the distracting shadows at the bottom aside. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek, Hubertl, Livioandronico2013, Llez, and Daniel Case: -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bruce1ee, Jacek Halicki, and ArionEstar: -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm fine with this crop, and I actually think it does improve the picture somewhat, although if I wanted to be really nitpicky, I might suggest cropping the sky just a hair. But maybe not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The top of the building points to the top-left corner, so cropping the sky further would cramp it. Also 16:9 is a very useful aspect ratio. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
        • That's quite a valid point. Anyway, it's fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with this crop either. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I happy with the crop. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose I know how an early opposition vote can kill a nomination, that's why I did not assess until now. There is nothing I could say technically against this picture, all is perfect. Light, composition, sharpness, contrast etc... I find it even better since the grass crop. But sorry, this building is really, really boring and ugly. It does not deserve a FP in my opinion. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'm sure the building looks disgusting IRL, but this image looks kind of art-deco and I like that. Great light too, and I do prefer this crop. It's always a good exercise as a photographer to try to do justice to an ugly subject. Well done. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well-executed and composed, but I don't see anything special here. Perhaps if this were taken a bit earlier, the golden hour could have given it a bit of extra oomph. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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