Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg

File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 18:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eric Hill, uploaded by Pete Tillman, nominated by Maedin
Info This is almost certainly Papaver rhoeas, the common or field poppy. However, as I'm not 100% certain of the species, I haven't marked it as such in the file description. Please remember that species identification is not an element of the featured picture criteria.
Support —Maedin\^talk 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too much colour noise IMHO, and images should not be framed. -- H005 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice the border! Oops, :) I've removed it now. I also used Noiseware Professional to fix up the noise a bit. It may not be enough to change your mind, but hopefully an improvement nonetheless. Maedin\^talk 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support Noise is ok now, I don't mind the DOF very much, the "back lighting" I even find very positive, just the halos are a bit disturbing. -- H005 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose back lighting --Leafnode✉ 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, beautiful light, but the out-of-focus flowers are too disturbing. --Aqwis (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful. DOF doesn't bother me too much. The only relevant downside to me is the tight crop at left. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi kallerna, I noticed that you very often oppose a nomination by just saying "poor quality". I hope you don't bother me telling you that I believe that, except for really obvious cases, it should be a courtesy to the nominator to be a bit more specific. -- H005 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but in some cases these's just too many problems to point out. The problems are too obvious. —kallerna™ 12:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't disagree with kallerna, there are flaws. I just decided that other aspects of the photograph outweighed the technical inferiorities. I appreciate that kallerna didn't really need to embellish in this case. Maedin\^talk 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Worth pointing out to anyone here that some who are here are not as experienced as others and may well wish to learn about their errors so it is helpful/courteous to comment fully IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t like the halos, but otherwise the image is very nice. Nikopol (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I the only one who doesn't like the left crop? --Pjt56 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is no problem. --.ds m. 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Leafnode -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]