Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Obélisque de la place de la Concorde à Paris.jpg

File:Obélisque de la place de la Concorde à Paris.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2009 at 21:18:54

•  Info created by Peter17 - uploaded by Peter17 - nominated by Peter17 -- Peter17 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Peter17 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor image quality: artifacts and noise, most obvious in the sky and darker areasAlvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A ridiculous FPX. We have FPs that are more noisy than this; it is not in any way at all an obvious dequalifier. --Aqwis (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but there is a single way to remove a good faith FPX, which is with a support vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment A good photograph, I don't have a problem with the visual noise in the sky, or in the shadows except perhaps on the pointed top. But there is a stitching error (see the roof aerials in the background), and it does look as though it needs some sort of perspective correction as doesn't seem vertical. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. —kallerna™ 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nah, nothing special. Just a obelisque- --Aktron (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting, useful and well done. --KenWalker (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Perspective correction needed. Yann (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think a perspective correction is needed : the obelisk is really thinner at the top than at the bottom. But don't hesitate to create another version if you wish. Peter17 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it is heavily tilted. Yann (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it's tappered, that's not the point. If you draw a vertical line (with respect to the frame of the picture) passing the pointy end of the obelisk, it falls quite off to the left of the base, instead of almost perfectly in the middle. Which means it's definitely tilted to the left. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Even if it was be a perfect picture of this Obelisk, I would still oppose, because, in my opinion, the object is not interesting enough. --Tired time (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see why an obelisk that is ~3200 years old would be less interesting than any already featured picture of animals or landscapes... Peter17 (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I mean it's not eye catching enough. Maybe the obelisk has an interesting history, but you can't see that in the picture. It's like making a photo of a radio, that is playing a very good song. --Tired time (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it is the same for any subject... No, seriously, it is an antique work of art... Peter17 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose La photo illustre bien le sujet, mais la composition est plutôt ordinaire pour une FP. --S23678 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Seconded. This is a rather standard photograph, a more artistic shot could have given better results. →Diti the penguin — 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe it is not artistic, but you cannot obtain those resolution and details with a standard photograph. You need to take several pictures and assemble them, what I did. Peter17 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Yes it is quite good quality over all. But if you use techniques like stiching multiple images you need to remove artifacts of the process (ie one shouldn't be able to tell it was done this way), so first either fix the aerial on the roof behind, or if that is too difficult, then perhaps just clone out the aerial. People also expect something special, beyond quality, about FP images. Perhaps historical significance isn't enough :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)