Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Palenque 16.jpg

// --Peter Andersen 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support // --Peter Andersen 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is good, But lack of Summary and information of the...the...the palace (or temple？)to understand what the building be uesd for.--○rz 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The structure seems a little overexposed, plus compression artifacts in the background. ADSR6581 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, good sense of the scale, and not too crowded with gawping tourists - MPF 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow norro 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro. An hour earlier, the shadow may have been on the meadow that now looks a bit as if it was cut every day :-) --SehLax 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow Rex 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shadow bothers me too Tbc 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]