Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl on Beach.jpg

File:Girl on Beach.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/ Nominated by Barun
Support -- Barun (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture with a nice composition but I don't see the reason to promote it as one of the best pictures on commons. bg mathias K 16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias. --Cayambe (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but I fail to even remotely see a encyclopaedic value. --Mylius (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
encyclopaedic value is not necessary for a FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Encyclopedic value or not, we just don't have many 'people pictures'. Especially ones which capture moments.
Neutral really a nice composition. But somehow i am still missing sth..i am not sure what it is. maybe the picture should be a bit brighter and maybe a bit of the front part of the girl should be visible. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose holiday snapshot, no value - MPF (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just an ordinary snapshot, can easily be re-shot. It's also very unencyclopedic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
encyclopaedic value (whatever that is) is not necessary for a FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great clean action shot with really nice composition. The lighting is a little dull, but I think I would still support if only the watermark was removed (noting the authors terms "Except for clearly identified derivative works, removal of my copyright notice or watermark by manipulation or cropping is not permitted."). Finally, it would be nice if the uploader could categorize it better. --99of9 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now per 99of9. EV not needed here. I'd support if the watermark is removed. --Avenue (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems pretty dark to me overall. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Image has watermark in lower left corner! --JovianEye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info -- After some levels adjustements and de-noising. This is a wonderful composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose for now. Image has watermark in lower left corner! --JovianEye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. --JovianEye (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Watermark removed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason I opposed last time. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better levels and watermark removed. 99of9 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Alves did a good job, the picture looks much better now and yes, we have not enough FP from persons like this one here. Need to think about and maybe I will support cause the composition is really nice. --mathias K 10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice edit Alvesgaspar! Amada44 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - same as last time, ditto to THFSW - MPF (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - attribution removed from image, license on image has been changed from cc-by-2.0 at source to cc-by-3.0 here Gnangarra 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- OK, fixed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problem with the sharpness --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image but nothing that makes me think it is featurable. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]