Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 25.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 17:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info A dolomite rock in a funny shape sculptured by the erosion. Mourèze, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 6 february 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 6 february 2014 (UTC)- Support --Ivar (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 18:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose No wow :( --Kikos (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)- Oppose No wow. A slightly unusual rock placed on a rules-of-thirds line does not a make a Featured composition. The lighting isn't pleasant. The foreground random. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Wov IMO (but "Wov" -sorry- is a stupid criteria IMO)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think good judgment to say whether she's pretty or not, but wov? ("wov" depends on the civilization and culture primarily and judges should participate in a global project as commons)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Pretty and good IMO (beauty is universal. The surprise depends on the culture). Sorry, This image is wov to an eskimo--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Miguel, do you realise that "wow" is the only criteria that distinguishes FP from QI. If you think "wow" is a stupid criteria then stick to judging QI. We have too many QI images being nominated at FPC. There has to be more than just "Focus? Check. Exposure? Check. Level? Check. Decent equipment? Check." All these things can be done by well the camera. Yes "wow" is subjective, that's why FP needs a collection of views and a minimum threshold -- unlike QI which has more objective criteria. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, but is this the perfectly ideal world? The rules can be interpreted and understood, until, at least, are suitables--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Miguel, do you realise that "wow" is the only criteria that distinguishes FP from QI. If you think "wow" is a stupid criteria then stick to judging QI. We have too many QI images being nominated at FPC. There has to be more than just "Focus? Check. Exposure? Check. Level? Check. Decent equipment? Check." All these things can be done by well the camera. Yes "wow" is subjective, that's why FP needs a collection of views and a minimum threshold -- unlike QI which has more objective criteria. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Harsh light and strong shadows. I can make it better if you allow me to it. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for interest, but I like it like that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:59, 8 february 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Info Urmas Haljaste, I uploaded a new version with less harsh light and less strong shadowsChristian Ferrer (talk) 14:03, 14 february 2014 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support -EveryPicture (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the idea, but this subject is not transmitting anything, the composition loses much effect. beautiful colors. badly cut right--Pava (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting and especially composition unconvincing. --Nikopol (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --P e z i (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Just in time, thank you for all the supports and saddened to have a change of mind once again but it is not the best version in my opinion, I revert thus on my favorite version. And don't be afraid I will not nominate it any more. All this for that! :-) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
