Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:TajMahal20080211-1.jpg

Image:TajMahal20080211-1.jpg

Voting period : from 22 Sep 2008 to 1 Oct 2008 (included)

Original, not featured

•  Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Haros -- Haros (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Haros (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- DarkAp89  Commons 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Better than the present FP but I would have preferred a symmetrical composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The picture has very good tonal qualities modelling the building and giving a very precise detailed view of the arabic letters ornamenting the facade. It is definitely better than the other featured pictures of Taj Mahal. I agree with the above comment on symmetry, but consider it in this context a minor objection . A good picture. --84.202.111.19 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Sorry --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

~* Support Impressive quality. --PedroPVZ (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Grey mood. Vignetting. Awkward position of the cypress in foreground. --B.navez (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor colors, contrast correction needed. --Twdragon (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting building, vanilla composition. Barabas (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeTilted and per B. Navez --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per Frode Inge Helland. Nsaa (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted to the right side. --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Harald Haugland (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support – I kinda like it not being absolutely symmetrical. Good quality. — H92 (t · c · no) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --PaulVIF (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Bombadil77 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I've never visited the place, but I think this pic is giving me an impression of both the fantastic building - and the dreamlike atmosphere associated to it (read the story - it tells much). So many symmetrical features gives me the need for some dynamic (un-)balance, given here by the skewed position of the camera + that the minarets are leaning inwards. Straight on the middle would simply be too much. The price to pay is the dominant grouping of trees not being kept in perfect balance by a bigger group of people on the left side of the picture. All in all: A very good photo. I wish that I some day can equal it. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, needs perspective correction. --Aqwis (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Kjetil_r 12:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Aqwis. --Karelj (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Symmetrical would have been better, and the tourists on the right are seriously distracting in their bright clothes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

result: 12 supports, 9 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit 1). Benh (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1

•  Info -- Color balance and brightness/contrast correction --Twdragon (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Weak Support good but still needs a perspective correction. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Let us count the compression artifacts..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -Clumsy edit, just look at the sky!! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - not the best composition.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose clumsy edit, illegal licensing (from cc to gfdl), no credits to author --Umschattiger (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Tagged for speedy deletion (yesterday). --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Did I fix the license properly? Mr. Mario (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah. You can remove the speedy-del template, although use of {{Information}} is appreciated (copy it from the original page, and adapt it accordingly (source). --Dschwen (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 Supports, 3 Opposes -->not featured -- Benh (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)