Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG

File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 20:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG

•  Info All by Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice and could be FP IMO. Some questions about this nominations: is it really better (or similar) than this one, already FP/QI/VI ? Second question: do we need another FP of the same place ? Third question: if we promote this one, should we delist the previous ? I have no definitive answers, but I tend to think the Poco a poco's one is a bit better (the previous has some slight sharpening halos, for instance...)--Jebulon (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• IMHO: 1. No 2. we don't need to, but that's okay 3. No. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support and regarding Jebulon's questions: looking on Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture reveals 2 FPs of Louvre Museum, 2 of CN Tower in Toronto, 2 of Eiffel Tower ("two and a half" considering the most recent FP of the Eiffel Tower), 3 of the Reichstag, 4 of Frankfurt skyline (including the same landscape), 3 of Neuschwanstein Castle, etc. etc. So that shouldn't be a problem. Tomer T (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Consider the viewing angle not being the same as the current FP image of Amritsar.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support per Telemaque and Tomer; we have no problem with different views of insects too, I assume (from my previous question). And, there is another FP; although the main topic is bit different. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose What about the building on the right. It is a bad crop!--Llorenzi (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Even if Llorenzi's comment is not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Info seems to be a very popular building. We also have a second FP. I think both existing FPs are better than this nomination. --ELEKHH^T 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Elekhh and Llorenzi. Slight perspective distortion, mainly a bad point of view and the crop on the right is a bit unappealing. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Llorenzi that the composition is unfortunate and the angle isn't that flattering to the building. Also the building isn't vertical. The other two FPs are remarkable pictures. This one not. Colin (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)