Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upper Antelope Canyon 03 2013.jpg

File:Upper Antelope Canyon 03 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 15:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea what exactly I'm looking at. More like an abstract piece of artwork (no offence, dude). Also, no wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you are inside the Canyon you don't know what is really around you. The whole place is some kind of natural artwork - people who had been there will agree with this statement. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a fantastic shot. However, for me to be considered FP it needs an scale, as a person around to compare and to know how big or how small are these fantastic geological structures. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. There was a previous (unsuccessful) nomination of mine with scale. I have another shot with a stick as scale. Do you think the one with stick is better? I like the composition with the nomination at hand. You can fully concentrate on forms, structures and light/shadow parts :) --Tuxyso (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the scale it is better because we can consider how big the structure is. On the other hand, I prefer colors of the image above; it has more contrast. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar one already featured. I'm sorry (I didn't check for the quality). --A.Savin 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sorry,but both images are VERY different. They share the same material but have nothing else in common. Really a reason for opposing? Hardly to understand for me. Even the orientation is different. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an image within the same scope. FP ist the "very best" of us, and sometimes, less is more. --A.Savin 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Brilliant! Arcalino (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture shows another aspect of the very comprehensive canyon.  Richard  [®]  18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 21:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support still nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As A.Savin mentioned:Similar one already featured. As long as you don't give us the choice between the two, I oppose. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still find this argument rather strange. With this argument you could delist a lot of FPs, e.g.
  File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG / File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg / File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg / File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG
  
  In the case if you have exactly the same perspective, with the same framing, with the same objects and with similiar light I can follow your argument. But I see no reason to have different very good shots from the same place. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comparison with Taj Mahal is not very relevant as people need different views of such a famous site. I am tempted to consider these two works as separate as the previous FP is about a particular spot (Heart formation) and this one is a generic view. But we can't blame the opposers if they are a bit selective, considering you have several successful FPs of this particular place. J e e 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural