Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Catalans restaurée MHNT PHa 138 b34 002.jpg

File:Pont des Catalans restaurée MHNT PHa 138 b34 002.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 09:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Eugène Trutat - uploaded by Anne-LaureM - nominated by Anne-LaureM -- Anne-LaureM (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anne-LaureM (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but to my mind, this is not well restored. There's a very large glary white area, it looks very unsharp, and there are a bunch of scratches. I remember liking the original better, but you aren't showing that file in the history of this file. I wish you would, so that we could easily compare the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm novice in restauration and usage of wikimedia and I have not found how to propose again the picture... I have created a new file for the restaured version but you can see the original here, thank you for your comment --Anne-LaureM (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne-LaureM: I've added the file as "Other version" to the file's page, so you can see how it's done. w.carter-Talk 10:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @W.carter: . --Anne-LaureM (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I do like the original version better because it has a frame. However, Anne-LaureM, if you do a more thorough restoration of the photo, I might like it better than both that version and this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's featurable, I think, if properly restored. Per Ikan, this one isn't thanks to the posterized white area above the bridge. I also think the vignetting could be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get this one when I can. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]