Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpg

File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 15:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent composition and coloring. Quenhitran (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Measured support Under ideal circumstances, I'd wish for a sharper background. But considering the circumstances, I think you got what you wanted. A very calming image, with a nice balance of cool and warm colors ... hotel lobbies are an underappreciated subject; I wish we tried to get more of them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Different but attractive composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment To me, the green tint on the very left messes up the very nice and clean color scheme of the scene. Do you think you could correct this with local white balance? — Julian H.^✈ 07:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Julian Herzog: I made a slight correction. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely fixed to my eyes. — Julian H.^✈ 21:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I'm undecided on this photograph, because though I like the scene and find the composition interesting, I'm bothered by the blurring beyond the foreground. I also wonder what the photo would have looked like if it had been wider on the right. The photo does look good at full-page size, though not as much at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: On the right is another entertaining lamp. on the left side at the top, a lantern burned by long exposure. I adjust the frame to the bottom of the vases is not cut --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Undecided like Ikan. The colours and room have potential, but the lamp shade seems to be partially covering some things that I can't help but want to see. If only the area behind the lamp had been plain, I might be happier supporting. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lamp crowds the left side of the image, and the rest of it doesn't seem particularly impressive in any way. INeverCry 20:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but a boring and uninteresting object and no wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment - Boring and uninteresting object? Good God! I'm almost tempted to support this picture in reaction to that remark, but of course I realize we all have different eyes and minds, and therefore differences in taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Fortunately everyone has their own tastes. The world would be boring otherwise. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Amen to that! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, I don't understand this candidacy. I don't see what is featurable here, neither the subject nor the composition, which looks random for me. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)