Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, Razgrad.jpg

File:Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, Razgrad.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 20:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Especially the minaret looks distorted. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't feel wowed but I do agree that the composition is quite good. The pile of dirt on the right side bothers me somewhat, but hey, it was there, so it's in the picture. I've changed to opposing, though, because if this building is supposed to have straight walls at right angles, that's not what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, surprisingly. Quite good but no wow but an FP needs wow to rise above a QI (see guidelines). Then, I don’t really like the washed-out colours (still, I’ve never been there, maybe it really looks that way) and the perspective distortion on the minaret either. --Kreuz schnabel 08:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I know about the guidelines, but sometimes, I make a bit of an allowance for liking a picture and just for some reason not feeling a wow. I won't make a really strong argument for this picture, though. By the way, there's another picture below that I so far can't decide whether to oppose on the basis of no wow, or possibly to support. I don't feel that "no wow" is a persuasive argument per se, though I sometimes fall back on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I addressed the other photo below with a more detailed argument than "no wow" and have on reflection changed my vote on this picture to oppose because I don't believe it's likely that a 17th-century mosque really looks like that. In other words, Spurzem's argument seems meritorious to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my eye the whole thing looks distorted almost bloated, but it also appears to be disused with plants growing on it and such, so maybe it has just settled that way. That said it does not wow me. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, just a little too busy. I could see what the photographer was thinking but unfortunately it didn't come through. Agree that it's a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roleček 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]