Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg

File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 08:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by w:en:Samuel H. Gottscho - uploaded by Michel Vuijlsteke - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 79 years old! Achird (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support! -- MJJR (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a historical document it is valuable, no doubt about that. As an FP candidate is sucks big time. พ.s. 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might not like the mood or the tension between light and darkness, or simply not like any historic photo, but if you don't explain nobody will understand. --ELEKHH^T 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing that sucks is your inappropriate use of the English language. Wetenschatje, insulting other people's photographies is not very cricket of you. Constructive critique is welcome and I assume that even you can do better than "is sucks". Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current version. I like the scene, and the image deserves some leeway due to age, but I think it also needs further restoration work to make FP grade. There's a lot of noise, a lack of sharpness near the top of the Center, and there's an odd lighter patch flaring in from the right side (indicated with a note). --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs de-noising, sharpening and some local reduction in contrast. --Claritas (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lacks sharpness at the main focal building. Royalbroil 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs de-noising--Miguel Bugallo 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Torstein (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see need for restoration here. --Lošmi (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]