Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rethymno - Neratzes-Moschee1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rethymno - Neratzes-Moschee1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 06:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info high resolution image of this interesting former mosquee, all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Besides my vote on QIC and the question wether or not an historic building mainly covered by scaffolding is really a good subject, I don't like the tight crop on the top and, the "floating" balkonies on the left and this perspective leading to a strong distortion of the towers top. Imo the view point of the previously used picture in de.Wikipedia was way better. --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The tight crop I easy can change. The balkonies I can retouche. The former pic is IMO not better because it has very disturbing parts on the left. But I have also a different view of this building. I will upload it the next days. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course the crop could be changed, but that should been done prior to the nomination. Once nominated, we can only evaluate an image as it is. Even with that improvements made, this image may be good but still not really extraordinary. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not able to guess which of your points are essential for your opinion and which not. Astonishing that you not argue on the essential point. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please read what I've written in my first post: The overall perspective and compositon just isn't optimal. The absence of obvious mistakes alone doesn't make it a Feature Picture --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- As I already have written: a subjective perception without substantive argumentation isn't helpfull. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please read what I've written in my first post: The overall perspective and compositon just isn't optimal. The absence of obvious mistakes alone doesn't make it a Feature Picture --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not able to guess which of your points are essential for your opinion and which not. Astonishing that you not argue on the essential point. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course the crop could be changed, but that should been done prior to the nomination. Once nominated, we can only evaluate an image as it is. Even with that improvements made, this image may be good but still not really extraordinary. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- The tight crop I easy can change. The balkonies I can retouche. The former pic is IMO not better because it has very disturbing parts on the left. But I have also a different view of this building. I will upload it the next days. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results: