Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg

File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2c.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 11:10:55

•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me. --Georgez (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Comment "No wow"? Please provide a real reason for opposing this image. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality, sharp, nice colors, good composition, and plenty of wow. --Lošmi (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Horrible dimensions ratio of image. (And for Redmarkviolinist: No wow is real reason for opposing.) --Karel (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What aspect ratio would you expect a panoramic to be? J.smith (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* Support A lot of wow for me - and only a panoramic image can show that this place is really surrounded by graffiti. --Chmehl (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Moved support to color corrected re-stitched version. --Chmehl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Enough wow for me. Extremely sharp picture, very interesting subject. Luctor 11:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It needs proper restitching. The bands in the sky are too obvious. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. Otherwise very good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restitched version:

 Comment A new version that had restitched is uploaded. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)  Comment This version is better stitched, the bands in the sky are not too obvious anymore. But I prefer the warmer colors of the original version. Maybe you can color correct this version a little bit? --Chmehl (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Color corrected:

 Comment I hope that will do, but my vision is not the best. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re-confirm  Support. Thanks for letting me know it was updated. Let this support follow for any other minor color corrections. --J.smith (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very Good. --Chmehl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for informing me; this one is much better.   ■ MMXX^talk  22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Much better now --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Acarpentier 12:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)