Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rally Dakar 2009 9.jpg

File:Rally Dakar 2009 9.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the Dakar organization - uploaded by Roblespepe - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the left crop is a bit distracting. If the whole plant was cut, I think I would support. Interesting setting for sports. --99of9 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light and scenary. But the crop of the helicopter and to a lesser extend the crop of the plant is not good. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Pjt56 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. —kallerna™ 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Featured picture candidates/ Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Support edit by --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the edit. --99of9 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bush is still there + it's uninteresting without the helicopter + the motorcycle is now too small part of the photo, as it is the main subject. —kallerna™ 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 edit

Support Let's try this version. Wider crop on the sky, distracting parts of the plant removed. I didn't want to remove a whole plant. It's nice to see some life in the desert. --Lošmi (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --Böhringer (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is getting better and better! No apparent artifacts. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ Question I agree this is getting better and better. I have a question. It appears to me that in the original source the rotor blade is cropped. How did you manage to avoid that? Did you rescontruct it and realso recontruct a lot of sky. In that case I must say it is well done, and I think you should mention more details of what you have done on the image page. Next, there is something wrong with the license on the image page as there is a warning. I think you should fix that. Finally, it would really be nice to know a little more about the location. Could it be geocoded or could some location information be added to the description - as much as is known? If these issues are addressed I am happy to support. --Slaunger (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't know where to start from :) Yes, I reconstructed a lot of sky, and a rotor blade as well. Basically, I was just using clone and healing tools. I added more info in the description. I'm glad you like how it came out. I don't have more details about location, because I'm not author of the photo. I uploaded a file using "derivative file from Commons" option, as many times before. It shows the source (original photo), so I don't have a clue why this warning appeared. Maybe someone has an idea? --Lošmi (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for adding the information about the processing done on the photo. Isn't that template warning simply a missing author field in the licensing template? maybe the Dakkar organization would be interested to know about this soon to be promotion, and would have more info on the location? --Slaunger (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. You were right. I added an author in the PD template manually. I don't get why this wasn't copied automatically, but anyway, now it's ok. Thanks for the tip. --Lošmi (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. I am letting my conditional oppose be here, still hoping that at least an approximate location can be found and added. (I am still impressed but the reconstructions you have made, I really think it is very well done!) --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you very much for the compliment. As far as we know, approximate geolocation is this. Considering that the image is in the desert, I guess it's Atacama Desert, because it's the only desert that they mention in the route description on the official Dakar website. But, that's only my assumption. --Lošmi (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting. I tried searching for photos from the Atacama dessert. I wouldn't say that the kind of sand seen on the photo seems to be representative, but I did find a few photos, where the sand look just right, like Moon Valley. So plausible, yes, but an assumption as you say. Of course stating that the location is possibly from the Atacama dessert in the file description would be better than nothing I guess. Linking to the route already on Commons would also add value I think. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked the image in the description, also providing a link to Dakar's website map with possible locations. --Lošmi (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I think you have done what was possible to address my concerns. --Slaunger (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ until above issues are addressed. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Issues resolved. --Slaunger (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be better as square (without the plant). —kallerna™ 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

The chosen alternative is: File:Rally_Dakar_2009_9-2.jpg