Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg

File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 08:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The stream, with surroundings, is a nature reserve, to a large part because it's a popular trail walking area. Added to file description. --Vivo (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ursnyggt! Gillar kotten nere till höger. :) --cart-Talk 08:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, interesting and well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work with the man-made 'bridge' in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Charles that the wood rather spoils the scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles and Colin. It wood be a lot better without that bridge . Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that the piece of wood is sub-optimal, but ultimately it's not a fatal flaw in my opinion. Man's influence is abundantly evident throughout the image, and even if a modern piece of lumber isn't quite as charming as moss-covered stone walls, it's still a part of the scene (and potentially a semi-permanent one, as opposed to, say, trash littering the ground, which would be a different story). The rudimentary bridge thing is apparently part of how people interact with nature at this location. The light, composition, and technical quality are all very good, and I think that about all we can ask of a featured picture is to masterfully show how things are, not how they should be for maximum aesthetic pleasure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. Also low EV. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]