Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danmark O, Fohn Fjord, Renodde.70°N 26°W (76566707).jpg

File:Danmark O, Fohn Fjord, Renodde.70°N 26°W (76566707).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 11:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Danmark O, Fohn Fjord, Renodde.70°N 26°W (76566707).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danmark O, Fohn Fjord, Renodde.70°N 26°W (76566707).jpg

2771

869

231

238

3008

2000

dust spot

1473

88

312

294

3008

2000

dust spot

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greenland
•  Info created by Rita Willaert, Flickr - uploaded by russavia - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Nice scenery! At first I thought the resolution is a bit low, but then I saw that the picture is 17 years old. -- Wolf im Wald 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment At least some of us make allowances for quality for 17-year-old QIC nominees, but I'm not sure how much we should do that on FPC. This is an amazing image, but it feels small and I'm not sure the quality, although great for 2005, is overwhelming enough for the size. If I were voting purely on composition, though, I'd have no doubt in supporting. It's definitely worth some thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support It's 17 years old, but it's a great shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent even if it is old. At the time, things could hardly have been better.--Ermell (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment No question, but it still feels small to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Ermell -- IamMM (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not so sharp, not wild on the PoV. Resolution of its time. Dust spots need attention. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support So gorgeous to me. Because of the sky, good use of a relatively wide angle, and a topic which is less accessible than average. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support The quality is not really the best (size and noise) but the sky + lighting are extraordinary. I agree with Charles, though, there is at least one dust spot, maybe more, but as I guess that the author will not fix them for us, I'd do so if nobody is faster than me. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) PD:  Done (dust spot removed along with a very very slight denoising)

•  Comment Thank you very much, Poco a poco! --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Greenland