Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaaba, Makkah3.jpg

File:Kaaba, Makkah3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 21:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kaaba, Makkah3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaaba, Makkah3.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info al-Kaʿbah in Makkah. created by Moataz Egbaria - uploaded by Moataz Egbaria - nominated by Moataz1997 -- Moataz1997 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Moataz1997 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Has wow, but in my opinion, not of good enough technical quality for a feature. See how much better in quality this FP is: File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg. Or this VI, which is too small to be featured: File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg. A closeup picture of the Kaaba would be wonderful to feature, but by comparison to the other two photos, see how drab and grainy it is, and the perspective is strange, as the railing and floor seem to be going down, such that one could almost be afraid it's a ship that could capsize. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose with regrets. Of course, we need good pictures from Mecca and even Category:Quality images of Saudi Arabia is still empty and non-existent. But I have to agree with IK, and the main problem here is the strong unsharpness at the left, which is not fixable. So, even if all the chromatic aberrations are removed, this photo still not at QI/FP level. --A.Savin 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Despite its flaws... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The technical quality is not good enough for a feature: perspective issues, unsharpness and CA (violet and blue-green fringes). --Cayambe (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Perspective and CA issues noted by Cayambe. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per everyone else due to technical issues WClarke (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)