Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj-Mahal Jawab-Cooper.jpg
File:Taj-Mahal Mosque-Cooper.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 12:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by swirly - uploaded by swirly - nominated by swirly -- Swirly (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Support
- Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support --
aghith 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 
Oppose same reasoning as mentioned in the other nomination.--Snaevar (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)- Support I agree the white balance is off but I'm going to make a different point of view. I think the current white balance adds an interesting warm and oriental mood. With an ordinary white balance, as more blueish, the picture wouldn't bring me these feelings so much. This makes me to support yet I understand how some people might feel uncomfortable with strange WB. Shortly: I accept the white balance in this case. --Ximonic (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree the white balance is off. W.S. 18:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- White balancing might defeat the purpose of the twilight lighting. I also like the angle. I'm usually disappointed at hoe short the Taj Mahal seems to actually be, but this makes it seem bigger. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 18:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Info For information, the white balance was set to "natural light". The colors are the colors made by the sun rising behind the Jawab, and not due to a WB modification. These are exactly the colors you would have got on an film camera. swirly
- Oppose Per W.S. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Wetenschatje--shizhao (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
