Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflexos do Planalto.jpg

File:Reflexos do Planalto.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 14:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Reflexos do Planalto.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflexos do Planalto.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created and uploaded by Jonas Richter - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting architecture and a nice mood. Could you please add an English description? --Code (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  weak support because small and DoF can be better but nice compotions and colours --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Very nice photo. I would have loved for the top of that building not to have been cut off, but I wasn't the one taking the photo. By the way, it's easy enough for me to understand that this building is the seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. It's the second sentence that's not as easy for me to make out without running some words through a translator or dictionary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Information for @Code and Ikan Kekek: English description and category added. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but you translated the part whose meaning was evident to me. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Ikan Kekek the second part it's just a dramatic text about the photo (it was difficult to translate with the same intensity): "Photo clicked at dusk in September day, during the highest point of the dry season, the setting sun provides special colours to the monument." Nothing important, this kind of dramatic description is quite normal in photo contests promote by this Brazilian "group", the lack of orientation create this type of description. This is a "good" one, normally are "Think about some x, reflecting in the power of my photo...". -- RTA 09:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Special architecture. Great colors. Excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm not sure. Nice composition. The resolution is low for this kind of image, DoF small. IMO it's sharp in the front and not sharp enough in the back. f/6.3 is too small for this kind of image. --XRay ^talk 05:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose something is missing, have a lack of wow here. The build size is compromised by the composition, as this is just a small portion of the building, giving the impression of away smaller building, the water is a little bit distracting a longer exposure would be better, and the most impressive of this portion of the building is the curves that are not highlighted in this photo, it's too far, and a little bit lost in the trees. -- RTA 09:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral like XRay. Very good composition, but quite small for a static subject. Quality is OK, but the sky is not interesting. Yann (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Moderate support It could be better, but because of the limitations of the camera used and my own partiality to images of modernist buildings reflected in water I will let that go. I also completed the English description and added the golden-hour category it supports (not that it wasn't obvious from the image, anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I feel something like RTA. The compo does not work for me (the foor structure at left), and the whole is too yellow. Not a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Per XRay. --Laitche (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture