Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cologne Germany DITIB-Central-Mosque-01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Cologne Germany DITIB-Central-Mosque-01.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 19:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info The DITIB Central Mosque in Cologne - currently still under construction - will be the largest mosque in Germany after completion.
- All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I am sympathetic to the problem of shooting large buildings and not being able to get far back. The result is often an extreme wide-angle view with enhanced perspective and distortions. Here the two hoops are a give-away and the top one is almost at 45-degree angle, whereas it should be horizontal. File:DITIB-Zentralmoschee Köln - April 2015-7493.jpg from across the road has much less distortion and shows the second minaret (?) but then there is more street furniture and there are more trees in the way. The front face of the building is also in shade, and the stone (concrete?) is a bit utilitarian. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment You name it: The mosque is huge but squeezed in an tight urban environment. It is the good question, if a representative picture of an important architectural building is better when covered between trees or taken without obstacles but with the restrictions of the TS lens. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 17:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin --El Grafo (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 09:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. And resolution could be higher, the sign can't be read. The containers on the left are distracting. --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment With all due respect: The image has a width of 5306 px and the sign a width of 72 pixels. Which font size do you expect to be depicted properly on 72 pixels? It is a religious buildings, but the image does not confer miracles. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit tight of a framing. But beautiful building! - Benh (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. --Laitche (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin etc.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Very good architectural image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
