Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The old townhall of Bamberg 089.jpg

File:The old townhall of Bamberg 089.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 14:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice view. You might indicate where you shot the photo from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The areas at right might be somewhat distracting, but the striking buildings closer to the camera make up for it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially considering the age of this photo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info BTW - File:Bamberg 1900.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought the featuring element of this photo is composition but that composition is not the original? --Laitche (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info - This photo won the Photo challenge called "100 years later" in October, 2015. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh ok, thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry: Rather small file, not very sharp and compositionally not more than QI. --Code (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. QP. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. — TintoMeches, 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not really convienced by the composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]