Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orchidaceae hybrid Cymbidium Doris 1912.jpg

File:Orchidaceae hybrid Cymbidium Doris 1912.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 20:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Orchidaceae hybrid Cymbidium Doris 1912.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orchidaceae hybrid Cymbidium Doris 1912.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support/ Very nice, like a painting -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral for me, the resolution is too small for FP. --Hubertl 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose very nice, but resolution is too small in my opinion. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Kruusamägi (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Too small. INeverCry 22:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Neutral Give us a greater Resolution so I will change my mind ;-) -- -donald- (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support In this case a larger resolution is irrelevant for me. The image itself is awesome. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the colors in this one, reminds me of how old professional illustrations look. I also like the composition and the smooth lighting and shadow, though I wish the background had less visible structure. But the over-all quality is not quite at FP level: Apart from being relatively small, it is not really sharp at the top. --El Grafo (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I strike my oppose now, and think again ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Info This second image is larger and sharper. Thank you for your collaboration. Please have a look to this image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 00:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just looks too artificial in too many places. Like it doesn't know whether it wants to be an illustration or a photograph when it grows up. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment very artistic with the shadows! but a bit small and a little lack of quality on the two top flowers Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)