Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC 8260 retouched.jpg

File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC 8260 retouched.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 00:00:34

•  Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund retouched by user:AlMare -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --kaʁstn 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent! --Sir James (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special IMHO. Sorry. —kallerna™ 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, have to agree with Kallerna. --Aqwis (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Aqwis. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Architecture is very static and often very dry. This does not have any real wow. Most high quality architecture photos like this should be QIs. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good quality, but the subject is not interesting enough--Tired time (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Not only the architecture in a Baroque taste matters. For me, it is valued view. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thx, George. This building is IMHO an important view for Hamburg because its directly over the "Landungsbrücken" in St. Pauli, the central place of the port of Hamburg. But next time I will prefer to propose a macro of the tiny little fly on the third window of the second floor. *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Touché. Macros and landscapes. It is simple though: nature's creations are more often beautiful than human creations. Downtowngal (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment One of the tasks of Wikipedia is to show the architecture of our cities. The answers here are not only critizising my picture what would absolutely be OK and I wouldn't have said a single word, but general contras against any picture of the real buildings in our cities are IMHO a problem for our project. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        •  Comment I can sympathise with you Mbdortmund, insect pictures seem to occupy most of the limelight in this section. I enjoy them, but I wish we could have an 'Insect Free Month', so that other pictures could be concentrated on. As for your picture, sadly, I don't find a view like this particularly exciting; photos of buildings need something unusual (for example, perspective, colour or setting) too really stand out. This one is a real example of what I like to see. If you like, I can show you a couple of others I think are great; maybe they could inspire you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment 1. We need more of the great macros, too. 2. The picture you named is great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)