Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, January 2022-2001.jpg

File:Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, January 2022-2001.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 02:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure why you would want to emphasize a man-made construction in a wildlife refuge? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, Charles. It's because these drains are a prominent feature along the auto tour that people take through the refuge. I use most of my pictures for illustrating Wikipedia articles and try to give people an idea of what the place looks like that I'm depicting. Several of California's bird refuges (e.g. Sacramento NWR, Colusa NWR, etc.) have auto tours like this. You drive on a levee over gravel and take pictures out of your car. – Besides educational aspects, I like the quiet, somewhat serene mood of the scene above. Think of this refuge being in the middle of nowhere, in a very sparsely populated area along the border to Oregon, just surrounded by mountains and a couple of volcanoes. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sold on it despite Frank's helpful reply. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is nothing interesting or special quality of this image. See comment above. -- Karelj (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --XRay 💬 06:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Basile and XRay, I like the composition, and the colours are very beautiful – similar to the carefully selected colours of some impressionistic painings. --Aristeas (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to Frank's convincing explanations. I like the colors and composition, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good composition but not striking. The FPs in the Gallery of California are much superior to this one. --Tagooty (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice elegant composition but I wish the background were sharper. Cmao20 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dunno, maybe I somehow don't get it, but while of course it's pretty country, I don't find this a great composition. maybe because while the tree is interesting in itself, it impedes the eyes' movement across the hills and mountains that would otherwise complement the icy curve in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]