Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Scar House Reservoir Dam.jpg

File:2014 Scar House Reservoir Dam.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 06:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by --Kreuz schnabel 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC). It was a cloudy day with dull light but I happened to catch a beam of sunlight enlightening the dam in the afternoon (Exif time is UTC), setting it very nicely off the background. Looks definitely finer in full view. I only had a few seconds to set up a composition before the lighting changed again.[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A little bit dark in the background. --XRay ^talk 07:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per XRay--LivioAndronico talk 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light, but I find the fence in foreground left disturbing. An horizontal or vertical crop could maybe help...--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am with Slaunger here. Cropping would take too much off the image, and cloning would be too large a deception. --Kreuz schnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light and interesting structure, colors and texture of the stones. I see the point raised by Jebulon regarding the fence. It is not the prettiest, but I think that too much will be sacrificed by cropping it out. It would be tempting to clone out, but I think it would be a too big alteration of reality to be acceptable. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment D’accord. --Kreuz schnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But why didn't you just shoot the image from the fence, or just to the right side of it? I know you would have had a lower point of view, but I think it would have improved the composition. The lighting is nice and really makes the dam stand out from its surroundings. Diliff (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having read your question I wonder why I didn’t even consider to do so. Of course you’re right about the fence being cropped out but the lower point would lead to two issues: a considerable amount of background hill would be covered, and the battlements on the opposite wall would not be visible either. I don’t think that would improve the image. --Kreuzschnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. It's always slightly unfair for viewers to tell you what you should have done, because they are usually unaware of the terrain and exactly how the change would affect the photo. It's easy to be an 'armchair critic' as they say. :-) Diliff (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but "that's the game" as we say in french. Furthermore: "armchair critic one day, photographer the other" :-)--Jebulon (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support-- Ram-Man 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Ram-Man: please use valid templates, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: Please don’t remove votings off an active nomination! Obviously Ram-Man didn’t notice in time to follow your advice. Why not just drop him a note and correct his voting respectively? --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kreuzschnabel: . OK, I'll do that for you (Merry Christmas !). But I think there is a great lack of care in general here, reviewers and nominators do things very quickly without paying enough attention. My action was not an "advice", but only the following of the rules. Small problems like these should not happen. Sorry, but @Ram-Man: 's vote was invalid and therefore should have been cancelled.--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't changing my vote anyway. It was an honest "mistake" and the purpose of my vote was obvious. I wanted everyone to see that it was deleted in favor of a bot. There are a whole list polling templates available (See {{Weak support}}). Why is FPC restricted to a small fraction of them? We shouldn't be catering to a bot (and this coming from me). It's a human project first and foremost. All FPC noms have to be closed by a human anyway and it is that person's duty to determine the actual vote count, even if someone votes without a template, votes {{Oppose}} when they mean {{Support}}, etc. AGF demands this. -- Ram-Man 20:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Hubertl (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places