Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goetheanum

Support as nominator Wladyslaw (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this. Good image, good composition. Capital photographer (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice composition and interesting subject, but the technical quality is a bit low. Was this a scan of a film negative? Because there are a few black splotches and areas that aren't as sharp as the rest. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pincushion and perspective distortion, easily fixed. Mfield (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edit1 still has perpective distortion - those two lamposts should be vertical. Mfield (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think they should, take a look here: Image:Dornach goetheanum westseite.jpg, bus seems ok but the lamps are not straight.. --217.197.69.146 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can appreciate the work that went into this but it's flawed in too may ways to succeed here. As tonemapping goes, this is pretty good but it's not a good stitch; vertical and horizontal parts are all over the place and even though the edit makes a commendable job of correcting it, I'm left wondering whether the place was actually build like this, with wonky doors and windows, off-level sills, etc. The small splodges in the sky are probably birds, the big faint ones top left is sensor dust. Both should be cloned out, really. Bigger issues like uninspired lighting and slight over-exposure (worse in the edit) are the final nails. --mikaul^talk 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re wonkiness, check the gallery on commons, it was supposed to be wonky... --217.197.69.146 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until tilt is fixed. crassic!^[talk] 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]