Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.JPG

File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 12:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.JPG

•  Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico talk 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The brighter stripe of background to the right is extremely distracting. Why didn’t you step a little to the right to get an even background? The technical quality is not breathtaking too. There’s noise visible in some parts (below his thighs, for instance), and the fingers of the hand holding the discus aren’t sharp at all (looks like a poorly done selection before editing). Barely QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Have a look at File:Discóbolo Lancellotti 01.JPG. While it shows poor overall quality the forehead is even sharper than in your nomination, and the background definitely much better. --Kreuzschnabel 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think, it´s extremely difficult, to get a good focus point on a marble quality like this. Its more the background, which does not convince me. From the quality sight, its a quite good shot. I am sorry that I can´t give you a pro. --Hubertl (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'll have to  Oppose because of the background I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Support okay -- KTC (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll have to  Support because of the foreground I'm afraid... --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done @KTC: can you check the new version? --LivioAndronico talk 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• •  Comment Background retouche is poorly done, traces of cloning and smear visible, especially next to the head. This edit alone is below FP standard, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 08:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support now for me...--Hubertl (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 14:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Little wow. And falls short on technical side, with processing, however it was done, looking to have removed most of small details. This is noticeable when comparing to the image Kreuzschnabel links to, and taken in similar conditions. - Benh (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschabel and Benh. Quality just okay, distracting background, sorry.--DXR (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background retouching isn't up to FP standards imo, and I'm skeptical about the saturated greenish yellow tone of the marble, in comparison to other photos. — Julian H.^✈ 10:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support Not bad for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)