Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Night View of Badshahi Mosque (King’s Mosque).jpg

File:Night View of Badshahi Mosque (King’s Mosque).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2024 at 07:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Night View of Badshahi Mosque (King’s Mosque).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Night View of Badshahi Mosque (King’s Mosque).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Pakistan
•  Info created by Muhammad Ashar - uploaded by Muhammad Ashar - nominated by C1MM -- C1MM (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support -- C1MM (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Without checking details: Perspective must be fixed. --XRay 💬 07:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy and perspective issue. Not a COM:QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great subject, but clearly needs a perspective correction and sadly a lot noisier than our best night photos Cmao20 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful motif, but oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Motif has potential, but in this quality no FP. --A.Savin 11:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
•  In progress I’m working on an improved version of this image. Can’t promise too much, but let’s see … --Aristeas (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   Done Here is an edited version with less noise, perspective corrections and some retouching. However, I am sorry but IMHO this is still clearly below FP quality. The original file contains just too much noise, compression artefacts etc., so it was not possible to remove them in a satisfying manner (things would be different if we had access to a raw image file …). I have uploaded the edited version because it may be useful for use in articles etc., but to my regret it will not help this FP nomination. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment That's a significant improvement for sure. It's still not enough for me to support, but at least I would strike my oppose. But IMO first you should take the liberty to upload this version over the original one. --A.Savin 18:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! I understand the wish to upload the edited version over the original one. But I would prefer to keep the versions separate. As with many old buildings, the perspective correction is difficult here (obviously many walls are not vertical in the reality), therefore there is no “definitive” correction and so this is partially a matter of taste. I have also taken the liberty to remove some temporary irritating elements from the image – trash, two cropped persons, three ugly garbage cans –, as declared with the {{Retouched}} template. If the original creator does this, they may still upload the edited version over the original, but I don’t want to overwrite an original with such a heavily edited version; maybe the creator does not like these changes at all … The nominator, C1MM, can offer the edited version as an “alternative version” (see rules); I just don’t know if that makes much sense as IMHO the edited version is still not good enough for FP. Asking for your forbearance, --Aristeas (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)