Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Set:Estonian beauty

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2014 at 15:43:19 (UTC)

Reason: Perfect composition + high quality + high resolution = this nomination
Articles in which this image appears: Lahemaa National Park
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Abrget47j and Ireena From commons

Support set or either as nominator – The herald 15:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The two 'sunrise' pics in particular are fine compositions w/plenty of px, and all illustrate the concept of bog well. Sca (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FPC discussion page). Quite striking and simply breathtaking. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I refuse to support images by an author who was so disruptive to Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Saffron Blaze:..Please don't !vote on the author, but on the pictures. Thank you..The herald 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald: Please don't bother lecturing me. The images in question are tainted by ill will, suspect ownership and sockpuppetry. Moreover, the user when "disappearing" requested all his and her images be deleted out of courtesy, which was rejected, but only further sullies their status. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am here to say I would be repulsed if we featured pictures of children done by a known paedophile. Here you are asking me to feature pictures produced by a bully, project disruptor and someone of questionable character (who used sockpuppetry to advance his images for FP status on Commons). That you don't think this should be a concern is fine. I cannot imagine any scenario where I would care what you think though, so appeals to me in this regard are wasting your time. As would lectures on hyperbole. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I supported so many of these at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These are in a gallery. What EV? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - EV not sufficiently demonstrated - three images seem to be of the exact same locality, and little context is provided for any image in the larger set. Gallery use is a concern unless mitigating circumstances can be brought forward. Two images in particular (2 and 5) may have had significant post-processing applied, which would also make them ineligible. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara:..Post-processing applied on the pictures do not make them ineligible. Please check this image and this FP. Thank you...The herald 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herald, neither of those was digitally manipulated to the extent we're talking about here. Both are long-term exposures, meaning that the fluids blurred together giving a bridal veil-like appearance. This (obviously) means using a filter to allow one to not get blown highlights, likely a neutral density filter, but that is not considered digital manipulation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Samsara; a collection of pretty pictures does not make a FP set. There seems to be a lot of reasoning completely unrelated to the FP criteria going on in this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Do all these images are of the same park? I checked a few and see different names. 2. One of the authors don't want to get his works featured. In Commons, the author can withdraw the nomination. I don't know what the policy here. (There is some oversight; so please don't mention them in discussions, even if you find them accidentally.) J e e 09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but some of them. Others are finest available pictures from Estonian countrysides. Thank you..The herald 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, such a generic set is not good if they not belongs to a single article. My other concern (the author's disagreement) also stands. So suggest a withdraw or speedy close. J e e 15:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They are very nice pictures, but I'm not clear on the encyclopedic value. In fact, I don't see one of them in the article you posted, and the rest are in a gallery. Not sure why all are nominated at once either. Mattximus (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of EV. Nikhil (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't want to repeat what others say above. More like a photo in a contest rather than something that will add a helpful factor in an article. ///EuroCarGT 03:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sven, care to explain why you placed the "not a ballot" template on this nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Blaze (talk • contribs)

Unusually high level of participation, coupled with seeing several people on this page (on both sides) that I do not recognize as having participated at FPC before. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several have been regulars here in the past, though somewhat infrequently recently. I recognize most of the names here from previous FPCs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Crisco, your are right. Some are older guys who were dormant. May be they are looking forward for a FPC nomination too. :-) The herald 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all of the people that drew my attention do have at least intermittent history in the area. I've removed the tag. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are beautiful images in their own right but I agree with others that this is a disparate set and should not be promoted as such. They should be nominated individually and stand alone. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]