Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upper Thracian Lowlands

Upper Thracian Lowlands


If this picture is featureworthy, it will surely be praised by those who are better at it than I would. :P Small in size or not, simply breathtaking. Taken by one Evgeni Diven and released under the free Creative Commons license, it appears in Sliven and Upper Thracian Lowlands as well as on a great deal of user talk pages as a gift.


 * Nominate and support. - Kizor 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are those dirt spots? (doesn't look like birds). Picture smaller than FP standard . Beautiful scene?,Yes I agree - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't meet the size requirements for FPs, and also the dark spots that look like dirt. | A ndonic O   Talk  16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - doesn't meet the minimum FPC size requirements, defects. Good idea, though. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I repeat my comment in Commons: yes, it is beautiful, but also dirty and small. I will support the promotion if a clean, high resolution, version is uploaded. - Alvesgaspar 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit2 (Karandila) Alvesgaspar 07:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support new version edit 2 or 4 (large, with or without birds).  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit 3. Without the people, the sense of scale is totally distorted -- the dirt seems much closer and smaller than it really is.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 1 - The resolution is still a problem. Support Edit 2 or 3 Thank you for the high resolution. The birds don't add much to the picture and are ugly. But the people don't make a diffrence for me. --Arad 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, pretty, but it doesn't tell me much (and the res doesn't help at all) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dirt and size. -- Tewy  23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the dirt is now fixed, right? --Arad 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak support larger version . A nice composition, but it's a little blurry, and I don't like the people. -- Tewy  01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect they don't think much of you after that comment. ;-) -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the original nomination because of size. -- Tewy  18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit 1 and edit 3 because they removed parts of the original picture. -- Tewy  18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose edit 2 because it's got nice colors, but it also removed the birds. -- Tewy  18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak support original. This one has dull colors, but at least it hasn't removed anything and it's larger still. -- Tewy  18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose both . Who says this was dirt? My guess is birds. Any way this nomination might as well be removed with a size this small. --Dschwen 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Author. Thanks everybody! The spots are birds (swallows). I uploaded a bigger image without the birds. Evgord 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Large version Edit 4 I personally don't mind the people, but I obviously don't mind removing them either! Terrific image. Is it a HDR? If so great technique. --Fir0002 08:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the spots are birds, then don't remove them, since they "belong" there! I'd support a large version with the birds but only if they can be recognized as such. If not recognizable, they do spoil the picture... --Janke | Talk 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree.  Shannernanner   14:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the new version is licensed BY-NC-ND on the website, which is an unfree license. Who released it to GFDL? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Evgord = author. Evgord, might I suggest you use GFDL-self to prevent any confusion?  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Says who where? We've had people claim credit for images they didn't take before so it wouldn't be unprecendented to see a false release. If he posts a release on the original site then I'd have no doubts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Says Evgord in this edit; he also uploaded the image. Moreover, the original picture (top) was taken from Flickr from http://flickr.com/photos/evgord/146836792/ -- note the username "evgord" in the URL as well.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He had no prior edits so I was suspicious, but now that I've checked and the account's been around since may I'm appeased that it wasn't a new fraudulent creation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, actually. The "Karandila" version.  Although I do think it would be better at higher resolution and without the people.  --James 18:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now that resolution issues are fixed. Breathtaking view and perfectly captured! Todor→Bozhinov 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; The shot itself makes up for the camera's apparent lack of quality. ♠ SG →Talk 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Supprt - An impressive shot that puts a city in perspective. Can we have the birds back, or was that dirt?--ragesoss 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They were birds, but it looked too much like dirt.  howch e  ng  {chat} 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the new full resolution, you can definitely tell they are birds.  I definitely prefer edit 4, per Janke below.--ragesoss 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - bitchin'--Niro5 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakened support - weakened only by the people who spoil that side of the glorious image. Any chance of some naughty photoshopping? -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you please - couldn't resist! :-) --Fir0002 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lovely work, Fir0002, and I really like it a lot more now, and subsequently support. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you mean edit 3, but could you clarify to ease the closer's job? -- Tewy  19:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support edit 3 I support Fir's edit, the one without the people. | A ndonic O   Talk  15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose all falsifying edits. Would like to see the large version with birds. --Janke | Talk 17:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Again, I agree. The edited versions seem to have blurred the view, which is gorgeous.  I would support a high-res version of the original.   Shannernanner   01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's edit 4.  howch e  ng   {chat} 03:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Sorry, didn't see the new addition.  Shannernanner   04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4, per above; photoshopping blurred the view, but the original in high-res is beautiful, and clearly shows that the "dirt" is, indeed, birds.  Shannernanner   04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4 only, i.e. the unmodified original. Please hold nom closing until all voters have had a chance to see it. --Janke | Talk 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 4 only. Strongly oppose edit 3, that one is not just naughty but a waste of four dimensions. The support for the original is weak since, yes: the image looks cool, but: any place can be made looking cool with a graded warm filter. This distorts the representation of the place. Well, composition is great and the sky looks spectacular. --Dschwen 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4. People and birds make the picture better. Olegivvit 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 or 4. The people should stay, but I am indifferent about the birds. Nautica Shad e  s  20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The one who will close this nomination is going to have a hard time counting. --Arad 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, this is very attractive and artistic, but I keep looking at it and keep failing to see the encyclopaedic merit. I've even looked at it in the articles and it really doesn't help me understand anything much about the place. I can't help but wonder that with so many versions, whether some people are simply chosing which one to support, rather than evaluating the image itself. Sorry. --jjron 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 4 It's a bit too faded for me. - jlao   0  4  02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

--Nautica Shad e  s  13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)