Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lapita image.png

File:Lapita image.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 13:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lapita image.png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lapita image.png

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
•  Info created by en:Dubai Parks and Resorts - uploaded by User:DPR 2016 - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- This is an architectural mockup of a hotel at a theme park in Dubai. I am not aware of any other architectural mockups being in Commons. I can only presume that this image is representative of its genre just because I know it was produced in the context of Dubai's well regarded luxury industry. The image is striking to me for its content. I think it meets Commons technical criteria. I came to know about this image from an OTRS request and got confirmation from their general legal counsel about their ownership of copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - It's nice to see you here again, Bluerasberry. This mockup is really cool, and I'll support it once a surprising little dust spot is dealt with. It's directly above the left side of the building or part of a building that's at an angle with the rightmost building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the welcome. I wish I could be here more often. I confirm seeing it in the sky midway up the picture from that location. It is a black spot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think the black spot should be removed? It looked stray to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek The spot was a flaw in the image. However, the image as I presented it was the one used to establish the theme park. I am not sure if that makes this image "historically significant" or if it is better to correct obvious mistakes in official media. If I had the editing skills I would have removed the spot, just because I think that makes for a better archived image. Thanks PetarM for making the call to correct the flaws. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Well this is something new. :) Just a question, since this is just a mockup and not a photo of an actual place, should this not be listed as a candidate for 'Non-photographic media' perhaps sub-section '/Computer-generated' instead of '/Places/Architecture'? cart-Talk 20:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@W.carter: Yes! I am not here routinely and I am not aware of category conventions. Thanks. I changed it. If both apply then someone can remove the : from the former category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Please remove the thin white border on the right and bottom. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I do not have photo editing skills for a quick response. There are two requests - spot removal and cropping of a border. If others have other requests then share, and I will make arrangements to improve the picture and share again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Trimed, and "bird" removed. Good drawing. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support and thanks Mile for lending a hand, that was nice of you. :) cart-Talk 08:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Thanks, Mile. That small problem having been dealt with, I'm happy to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose As I have a background in computer graphics, I am happy to see such an image here. However, I have to say that this is not state of the art in computer graphics, as it shows several issues like missing reflections in the pool, and missing/incorrect cast shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It might not be state of the art in technology but I think by virtue of this being used by a major construction company for an extravagant luxury resort, it apparently is the sort of image which top contemporary professionals in Dubai will accept. I am not sure how expectations in computer graphics vary by year and origin of production. Can you make a guess about the year in which pool reflections and shadows been a thing? I have never seen anything like this and cannot comment on its quality or the extent to which it is representative of an art field. Was art like this produced 10 years ago? Will art 10 years from now look like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support purely for its accomplishment as a CG architectural rendering. If it were a photo I would consider the nearly-blown sunset sky a deal-breaker. But, since it isn't, since it's what the creator chose, I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture