Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Staverden - watermolen met bevroren waterrad.jpg

File:Staverden - watermolen met bevroren waterrad.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2009 at 22:56:21

•  Info created by User:Quistnix - uploaded by User:Quistnix - nominated by -- Art Unbound (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Art Unbound (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Akoopal (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Beautifull picture, catching the feeling of the winter. Worth some attention.
•  Support Dolledre Dolledre (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Davin 07:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Rubietje88 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose RTG first ! --> 2 small! --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --JanB46 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice try but the image is far away from our size requirement and should be disqualified by an admin --85.181.6.80 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Admins are as much bound by the rules as any other user. This will have to run its 9 days I'm afraid. En voor de Nederlandse supporters. Lees 'ns de guidelines alvorens er met de voeten vooruit in te vliegen ;-). 78.21.253.47 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• We need a Hausmeister :-). --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Size, and it also contains a watermark over the image. That is unacceptable for FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well, this is far too small and even has an ugly watermark. I wonder where all those support votes came from? --startaq (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks like they are all dutch. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose size, composition, sky, watermark --Simonizer (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Got attention, but it's not spectacular enough for a FP. No mitigating reasons for size --Javier ME (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Quistnix (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) - I never intended to make a photo for the FP list, and if you read the comments above, you'll probably understand why
  • P.S. the watermark was added to avoid clumsy users changing the license, as happened before - Quistnix (talk)'
  • Use of watermarking is strongly discouraged, you can instead put licensing information in the exif data. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • EXIF data can be changed in an instance, and too many here love to do that. Hey, I'm contributing for free! Pay me, and you can ask me whatever you want from me! - Quistnix (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, and watermarks can (and will) be cropped. Lycaon (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice picture, but partly overexposed. No FP quality, sorry. -- MJJR (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pour les même raisons cité par Richard et Simonizer. --Acarpentier 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much too small. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size, watermark, overexposed, that's clearly a no-go on the quality part -- Gorgo (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size, watermark. Lycaon (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size, watermark. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size, watermarked and composition too much foreground water, cut roof? of building behind Gnangarra 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other opposers --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose: watermark, overexposure in upper part. Jonathunder (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of the watermark & size. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 18 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)