Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pergola - Point Pelee National Park.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Pergola - Point Pelee National Park.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2020 at 18:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info: A pergola along the Marsh Boardwalk, Point Pelee National Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)- Support I could quibble about the image quality a little, but the shadows make this a really outstanding composition, well done. Cmao20 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, the shadows are the main point here, I'm glad you noticed :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support A special kind of mirroring --Llez (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment Doesn't work for me with this vanishing point targeting an uninteresting guardrail -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)- Comment If I may. The point of the image is the uniform lattice of the shadows. A small crop, top and bottom would give the photo a better impact. If you don't see exactly where the lattice begins, you get that infinity feeling. The bench will be cut, but that is secondary in this image IMO. See note. --Cart (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Done: cropped. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yay! :-) Support --Cart (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yay! :-)
Oppose bad geometry. JukoFF (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- If one is really into Lobachevskian geometry, perhaps. Can't see what's wrong with it otherwise... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The center square is ideal, but the top rungs are not parallel). But this is not the point, the point is that there is no enceclopedicity, what should this image illustrate on Wikipedia *? JukoFF (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- You keep giving this reason for opposing things here and at QIC, and I wish you'd stop. First of all, you have no idea what might be used on Wikipedia, but second, this is not Wikipedia and this is not FPC on any of the Wikipedias. You think that Commons is only about encyclopedic illustrations, not about photography in any other way? Where in the world do you get that idea from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The center square is ideal, but the top rungs are not parallel). But this is not the point, the point is that there is no enceclopedicity, what should this image illustrate on Wikipedia *? JukoFF (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- If one is really into Lobachevskian geometry, perhaps. Can't see what's wrong with it otherwise... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I see what you were thinking but I think the image is trying to do too much. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I like this, and I don't find it a particularly complicated form, but I do find it satisfying. And for JukoFF, I could easily see this being used on Wikipedia as a good example of light and shadow in photography, but more importantly, I could see it being used on another page on photography, -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel Poco a poco (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel --StellarHalo (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
