Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dolmabahçe Mosque

Dolmabahçe Mosque
Voting period ends on 11 May 2014  at 15:22:09 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality and resolution images that even show the context (Dolmabahçe palace) in the background. VI in Commons, FP in trwiki.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Dolmabahçe Mosque
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Arild Vågen


 * Support as nominator – ArildV (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Foreground is noisy. Trees come way too close to the mosque's walls... I have a feeling if you stepped a meter to your right the angle may have helped reduce that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review Crisco 1492 . I dont think (one year since I took the image) that is was possible to step a step a meter to the right, next to the water is a small guard house and a fence that protects a private section of the quay, please see the very left of this picture. If I on the other hand had taken the picture from a boat, it had been disturbing modern buildings in the background.--ArildV (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but right now there are considerable distractions (between the cars and trees). Architectural FPs generally have considerably less distracting foregrounds; some, such as the National Press Monument, have activity in the foreground, but even then it adds to the image (showing a function of the building). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Could be cropped in a bit tighter on L and below to mininmize noise. Sca (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion Sca. I added a alternative.--ArildV (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A photo from the Bosporus would have a clearer composition, and given that about a zillion ferries and tourist boats sail past this mosque each day, it should be possible to obtain a high quality image with a composition such as that used in File:İstanbul 5495.jpg and File:Exterior view of Dolmabahçe Mosque.jpg. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, because of all the distracting modern buildings in the background (the point here is that you only see the mosque and the palace, but no modern buildings).--ArildV (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A good choice of DOF could mitigate that issue... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, even if you manage to get the buildings in the background out of focus, they will still be a highly visible part of the picture. And you will lose the palace.--ArildV (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never said anything about "eliminating" issues, but "mitigate" issues. Make them less prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I'm going to vote no, not because of pictorial issues, but because the article is only 17 words — essentially a stub. I'm curious to know more about this interesting building. Sca (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not 17 words anymore; I expanded it a little. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's still pretty sketchy. Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to reasons outlined above. As said, for example, ...there are considerable distractions (between the cars and trees).... Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

-- The herald  15:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enough concensus  The herald  15:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)