Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mannahill railway station, 2017 (01).jpg

File:Mannahill railway station, 2017 (01).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2023 at 08:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mannahill railway station, 2017 (01).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mannahill railway station, 2017 (01).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations
•  Info created and uploaded by Bahnfrend - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support There isn't really anything "special" with this station – it's just very idyllic with the chosen composition. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, the station is no longer used, if anyone was wondering (and hence the chosen gallery). --SHB2000 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The 'Train stations' gallery can contain stations, past and present, just like the Water transport gallery also contains 'Shipwrecks'. It's a lovely old building. --Cart (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair – I just didn't consider it one since it's nothing more than a historic building today, but I wasn't aware of the shipwrecks. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The building's biggest "clame to fame" is that it was a station house (and still looks like it). Always better to use a specialized gallery than getting lost in a big general one. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Support - ABAL1412^{🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺} (talk ☭) 08:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This is the only one of my more than 10,000 Commons pictures that has ever won me a prize in a Wikimedia contest. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Perfectly OK QI/VI-type photo, but the light and sharpness are on the mediocre side for an FP nominee, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral IMHO, it’s a QI but no wow. ★ 02:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI, not FP, per Ikan. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, not surprised by this vote. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment And to be honest, I'm not surprised by this comment, but I am disappointed by it and would ask you to please stop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm free to make remarks, as long as it falls within Commons policies – I'm not going to stop just because one person found it "disappointing". --SHB2000 (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• You're free to single out one voter for "remarks"? Think about the implications of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Info Photo is about as sharp as I could get it with the camera I was using (Nikon D5100 - obsolete upper entry level DX DLSR) and in the applicable (mainly overcast) lighting conditions. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not so clear to me that this is a QI, detail is rather low Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Poco. 20 upper 21:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)