Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passeio de Buggy nas dunas de Genipabu 01.jpg

File:Passeio de Buggy nas dunas de Genipabu 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 23:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
  •   Info created by Jjunoo - uploaded by Jjunoo - nominated by DarwIn -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - This is a beautiful view, but I don't find the composition as good as in the other dune buggy picture below. In the other picture, the ground is more nearly level and its color contrasts beautifully at right angles with the blue sky and with the ocean in the background. Here, we have a great view, but the single dune buggy and the large amount of nearly featureless sand seems incongruous with a middleground of pastel-colored buildings, a very active sky and a background of an arcing elevated highway, city skyline and green coastal hills. I would actually like this photo better if there were no dune buggy, no people, and much less sand. Also, whatever the parallel lined structure to the left of the dune buggy is, I find it distracting. So, to sum up: Interesting, good picture with great middleground and background but problematic foreground, and therefore, to me, questionable for a feature. I haven't decided whether to oppose yet, however. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral It’s certainly nice yet I tend to oppose mostly per Ikan. Colour balance is off IMHO, the sky is too blueish. Colours of car and village look more like a painting, a bit washed-out and channel-blown (the red top of the lady in the car). Many white areas look blown. All in all this is rather a work of art than an educational image of informative character for encyclopedial use. I wonder if it’s stronger when all the featureless parts are cropped out (see annotation), the framing strikes me a bit "too tall". --Kreuzschnabel 05:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]