Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Fairchild 2022.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 16:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Washington
Info created by Sea Cow - uploaded by Sea Cow - nominated by Sea Cow -- Sea Cow (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Sea Cow (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I don't know drone photo technology or the location, but this looks like the sort of image you could take from the ground with a better camera on a day with better weather. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Better weather would have helped a lot here--Ermell (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, and also too much less-interesting pine forest foreground to be great (as opposed to good). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose It’s a nice idea and composition but needs better quality and light. Too soft at less than 6 megapixels. With a clear view, this could be great indeed. Has the sky been desaturated, or is it naturally that grey? --Kreuzschnabel 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Too dark in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose looks a bit too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose and strongly suggest nominator withdraw the nomination. This image has not gained any support beyond the nominator in several days here. It is very unlikely to succeed and there is no point in keeping it open.Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}}
- Huh? Why does this image not meet our guidelines? Which guideline in particular is violated here? FPX is for images that are obviously entirely misplaced on FPC, and I cannot see this in this very nomination, even though its seeming to fail so far. Why don’t you want to allow the 9 day voting period here? --Kreuzschnabel 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed it above. Perhaps we need to make some sort of template for this if {{FPX}} is not seen as appropriate. (As for your criticism, hasn't it generally been a rule in the past that images that receive no supports beyond the nominator in three days are taken down? At this point the nomination would need 13 supports to offset these opposes, and I have never seen that happen. I doubt you have either). Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly not :) my point is that a lack of supporting votes just doesn’t mean the image nominated is against our guidelines for nominations. Yes, it could have been declined earlier but hasn’t. --Kreuzschnabel 17:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have changed it above. Perhaps we need to make some sort of template for this if {{FPX}} is not seen as appropriate. (As for your criticism, hasn't it generally been a rule in the past that images that receive no supports beyond the nominator in three days are taken down? At this point the nomination would need 13 supports to offset these opposes, and I have never seen that happen. I doubt you have either). Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Huh? Why does this image not meet our guidelines? Which guideline in particular is violated here? FPX is for images that are obviously entirely misplaced on FPC, and I cannot see this in this very nomination, even though its seeming to fail so far. Why don’t you want to allow the 9 day voting period here? --Kreuzschnabel 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Sea Cow (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
