Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hattem, Gevelsteen van Stellingmolen De Hoop 13-09-2021. (actm.).jpg

File:Hattem, Gevelsteen van Stellingmolen De Hoop 13-09-2021. (actm.).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2022 at 05:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others facade stone.
Info Hattem, facade stone of Stellingmolen De Hoop, built in 1806. Destroyed by fire in 1897.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting this as a QI and VI, but I'm not understanding it as an FP, but I might be missing something. Is this an extremely famous national monument? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: As far as we know, this is the only tangible remnant of windmill De Hoop anno 1806. The history is described on https://www.molendatabase.org/molendb.php?step=details&nummer=5319 Personally I find it an intriguing photo of a facing brick with a loaded past. I have tried to portray the object as accurately as possible. I'll leave that to someone else to judge.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the reply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see this as a kind of vanitas still life. The inscription with the name of the windmill is very appropriate for this – “hoop” could be translated as “hope”, right? The clogs placed on the top and on the right are somewhat odd, but complete the still life. They seem to say: “Stranger, once living people like you walked in these clogs and run that mill which was called ‘Hope’ and indeed was a flourishing trade in its time; now they are all dead and gone, their hope has been scattered, just like you, your hopes and fears will vanish and die.” ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for Aristeas' convincing points of view. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, and I get the arguments for it, but the bottom line to me is that I'm not getting a satisfying linear arabesque out of it, and there's nothing else that sufficiently substitutes for it. Symbolism and pathos are great, but for the most part, you still need a convincing form, and I mean no disrespect in saying that I myself am not seeing one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it, for me this has a lot of artistic quality --Kritzolina (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image quality as usual for you, and as to the reasoning for FP, Aristeas has said it all. Interesting photo that offers something unique. Cmao20 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support due to historic value. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the others. I like the composition (even though it is very basic), and the historic value is a nice bonus. --Domob (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others