Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pedestrian crossing

Pedestrian crossing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:52:57 (UTC)

Reason: Who says the mundane can't be made magical? A very striking use of lines and an overhead view to depict the concept of a pedestrian crossing
Articles in which this image appears: Pedestrian crossing
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle, maybe?
Creator: Dllu

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as photographer -- dllu (t,c) 03:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as fulfilling FP criteria. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto. Lacks EV, visual interest, focus. Sca (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looking at this other image: [1] things seem to be perpendicular, ~~so I wonder if there is excessive software manipulation (i.e. adjustment) in the horizontal direction? (I don't mean vertical perspective adjustment).~~ Bammesk (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . The painted areas on asphalt are perfectly square, so that doesn't look like excessive manipulation. Interesting photo and subject.... Bammesk (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . Never mind, google earth shows the intersection isn't perpendicular. I am Ok with this nom, so Support. But as suggested in the commons nom I prefer something like Shibuya crossing if it was nominated. Bammesk (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the shape of the intersection; it is very distracting and confusing (see above). --Janke | Talk 20:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems there's nothing that satisfies "EV" except birds and old money. Meets all the criteria. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an excellent photo artistically, but the composition seems somewhat cluttered for FP status. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the picture too, as a work of art and symbol of culture. But the mess of overhead wires, tracks, road markings, and a different pavement coloring of the crosswalk, is very distracting. Additionally, while the diagonal crosswalk is fine, the image is off-centered, with there being slightly more of the road to the right of the crosswalk's top right corner than to the left of the crosswalk's bottom left corner. I wouldn't oppose it—it has merit on its own—but I'll leave the discussion to other !voters. epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Janke - Jobas (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Julian above. – Yann (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. For the purpose of illustrating pedestrian crossings in general, I'd prefer an image of a regular intersection with right angles. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7 supports & 5 opposes = no consensus. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]