Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpg

File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 09:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpg

•  Info created by Rutake - uploaded by Rutake - nominated by Rutake -- Rutake (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rutake (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. Please, add some more information about the place. The category is not existing and there is no geolocation to help to allocate it somewhere in Estonia. Furthermore, I'd recommend to increase the luminosity of the hightlights, since the brigther areas in the background are a bit grey and I believe that if it's a bit brigther will look more natural without distracting considerably. Poco² 10:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Väga ilus. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not for me. What, exactly, am i supposed to go "Wow" about? Kleuske (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • At POTY election there is a genre called " Nature views". This gene has more pictures than any other genre. For me, it shows that many of us consider different nature and landscape views featureable. The fact that it is an Landscape reserve shows it's not a random landscape but worth protecting, hence somehow special. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • All the trees are the same species and the same age (from the look of it). This isn't nature, this is a production forest, AFAICT. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • The landstape reserve belongs to to Natura 2000 ecological network. It is well known network of production forest and cultivated land. Where does this ignorance come from?? You have never been in this place but you know exactly how thing are. The place in the picture is recreation site in the landscape reserve and the forest is probably trimmed but definitely not planted. Planted forest looks like this. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        •  Comment I am rather sure the trees are not planted when I look their positions and their age. There is at least 10-year age difference among some of the trees in the image. There also also some old stumps, but not everywhere (in a planted forest you would not see that). Not that Estonia has lot of planted forests -- if you leave a place empty, then there's soon a lot of trees emerging without any need to plant something. But in this soil, that you see in the image, P. sylvestris is by far most suitable tree to grow and that is the reason you see almost only that tree (it seems to be lot higher sandy place where are very few nutrients and hard to get access to water). So if you haven't seen a lot of forests, then you should really visit Estonia. We have a huge variety of different forest types and more than half of the territory is covered with forests. So next time you'll know more about the topic. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kleuske. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose a decent image, but not FP to me, per Kleuske. Which species of tree is shown? Please, create the red category if necessary. A geotag would be appreciated. --Cayambe (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Comment It's a pine tree, the most common one, Pinus sylvestris I guess.
  • I added geotag and fixed the category for her. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Not an outstanding quality and the sky is a bit blown however a nice nature view, I added the category for the tree --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Halavar (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support If the point of all these photos of wildlands in Estonia has been to make people want to go hiking there, it has worked. I shall have to make the time at some point to walk around these swamps and birchy woods. This image is no exception ... I really love the way that, on first inspection, we think the orange on the trees is from a setting sun behind the camera. But once you blow the image up you see it's just the bark. Does some animal do that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment :) When the bark is younger, then it is thinner and soft. When it grows older, then it starts to get thicker fast. Animals may also eat the young bark, but thous trees don't seem to have any damaged areas on them. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose Sorry its a good photo but I'm not really convinced (maybe because I'm not so impressed by the forest since I grew up in Northern Europe and the Taiga is the world's largest terrestrial biome). It is obvious no Ancient woodland or Old-growth_forest, but a planted forest with young trees (all trees have about the samesize and therefore the same age). Full-grown pine trees are larger and thicker. It's very easy to find a more interesting coniferous forest and without a manmade trail with railing. It is part of a nature reserve, but I guess the reserve protects primarily the bog and lakes.--ArildV (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A forest doesn't have to be old-growth to be impressive. I've found some that are regenerating within years of a fire to be visually interesting as well (and there is EV in such an image too, as that state of a reforestation doesn't last more than a decade or so). Visually, I like all the parallel thin lines this creates. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment This place is actually a camping site in the middle of the landscape reserve. Actually there is plenty of ancient woodland in this area. It is not the typical landscape of this area. In this picture some trees are cut to open the view to the bog and "kame field". I don't think the trees are planted. I just like the trail, the hut, actually the whole place and especially the idea of making the wildest nature accessible to the people. --Rutake (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose sorry, but no wow and nothing special for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting subject, but the composition is unpleasing for me (horizon, handrail meeting the frame to the left, tree on the right).--Nikopol (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Works for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 
•  Support — TintoMeches, 02:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places