Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paestum BW 2013-05-17 15-01-57.jpg

File:Paestum BW 2013-05-17 15-01-57.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 17:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Tourists ruins this picture. If it would be possible to remove them (or you have another version without them), I think it would look better. The sky, lighting, building looks awesome but these tourists just automatically distracts you from the building. -- Pofka (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took intentionally this picture, the tourists make it possible to compare the size of the temple --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KTC (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tourists stop it from being FP. There are plenty other clues to scale such as the fence (which is typically around waist height), the grass and trees. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on Colin, not you :-) - Benh (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, yes I was aware of that photo when saying this, and by your smilie I think you are aware there's a world of a difference. If this photo had a photogenic couple staring at the monument, perhaps, or if it was so crowded with tourists that they were an interesting feature, but we've just got a random assortment of tourists looking every which way. Makes it look like the unfortunate photos everyone gets when going with a tour group, rather than a featured picture where the photographer has gone at a special time of day or captured a special moment, or simply avoided the crowd. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tourists at a tourist attraction? Imagine that ... People go to see these things from all over the world; they are part of their modern story. While they weren't necessary, they do not detract from it, either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to the tourists, but very nice atmosphere. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird artifacts all over the picture. Strange looking clouds. Harsh and flat light. Disturbing shadow on the bottom right. Tourists don't help either IMO. - Benh (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry I have to agree with Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, not an outstanding image. The main subject is not very rich in detail, and the tourists (white clothes mainly blown) are disturbing. Would be different if they all were looking at the building. --Kreuz schnabel 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the fact that the light is coming directly from behind is a problem here because it makes the columns blend together. As a result, the depth of the building is very undefined. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The tourist is not a issue here, actually is good, gives scale, but the columns are in a light that do not allow us to see correctly. (you could demolish the columns at the back :P). -- RTA 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good quality but not excellent. --Milseburg (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]