Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mada'in Saleh 2017.jpg

File:Mada'in Saleh 2017.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2020 at 08:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mada'in Saleh 2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mada'in Saleh 2017.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and memorials
•  Info created & uploaded by Alhasaam - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support as suggested at this nom. -- Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Kritzolina (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose I prefer this one to the previous nom, the motif in interesting and the lighting is nice, but there is no detail in either nom, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support It could be the very first FP from Saudi Arabia --Andrei (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Neutral The composition is better than the other one but the image quality is still imperfect and the shadows look like they've been lifted too much. I wouldn't vote to delist it if it were already an FP, but I don't think I'm sure it should be promoted either. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Could be sharper, but it´s OK for a 36MP foto. Je-str (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Beautiful light and colors. Meets our minimum standards for image quality, which is sufficient when there aren't a lot of similar images around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. I wish it were sharper, but it has a poetry that is weakened but not destroyed by the ATV tracks. This would be the first FP from Saudi Arabia? If so, I'm shocked that there are no FPs from Mecca. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, you are right, I did not notice it. That file is from 2003 so we better not mention it here :) --Andrei (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak  Support per KoH, Andrei and Je-str. Still a very nice picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak  Support per KoH and others. --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality of the image is not good, I wouldn't have promoted it as QI, which also means I cannot support it for FP. --A.Savin 13:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Need to be sharper and more detailed. Sorry. --StellarHalo (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a little bit better, but technically it still has a curious blend of oversharpening on the monument's edges yet very soft detail, and compositionally there's still too much distracting detail elsewhere in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Actual details in this image are closer to 2mp. There were also some pretty destructive processing methods applied. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fairly high resolution, but the quality is not convincing even when reduced. --Milseburg (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Savin. --Gnosis (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Palauenc05 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)