Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mourning of Muharram

Mourning of Muharram[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 10:47:21 (UTC)

Reason: Better quality than my previous image of the subject. Getting a better quality shot than this one would be very difficult. Good composition of a rarely photographed event. Adds to the few cultural FPs. See wikimedia version for an annotated version
Articles in which this image appears: Mourning of Muharram, Hussainia, Majlis, Muharram
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support either as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A definite improvement on the last nom [1]. I really like the ceiling in this actually, but not sure about the rest. At the moment, neutral, while I think about it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Agree with Aaadddaammm. The white balance is a little blue and could do with correcting in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I manually adjusted the balance to get this as I thought this was how the lighting in the hall was. --Muhammad(talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, is there significance to the hand gesture, which seems to match the hand image on either side of the speaker (and which appears elsewhere in the room as well)? Regardless, support as a valuable and dynamic 'journalistic' image, even if aesthetically it's not the best. Chick Bowen 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lecturer's hand gesture is purely coincidental. The other hand like objects represent the five members of the Ahl al-Kisa --Muhammad(talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. It still makes for an interesting parallel within the image. Chick Bowen 04:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, preference to Edit1. I've uploaded an edit with a tilt (?) correction, as well as a tweak to the colour balance, per JJ's comment. If it seems to be an improvement, then go for that (or you could re-edit from your original), otherwise, support nommed version. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edit --Muhammad(talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Honestly, not particularly eye-catching and low EV. Ehud (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe not aprticularly eye-catching, but good EV. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find very much EV in this picture. It's hard to figure out precisely what is going on. Razum2010 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see little EV or interest here, sorry. Cowtowner (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image, good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's too cluttered. The apparent object of their attention, the speaker, is far away, blurred and expressionless; the video screen is distracting and jarring against the richly-ornamented background. There's nothing remotely interesting about the audience, which occupies a full half of the picture. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kindly request the closer to weigh the authenticity and credibility of the votes as there are many users here who I have not seen before at FPC --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that closers audit for sockpuppeting and other sort of manipulation in all nominations. I see no reason to expect this nomination to be different; no need to pander. Cowtowner (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 support / 4 oppose = 60%. Looking into users who are not very active here, I didn't see enough (if any) evidence that they are sock puppets. I didn't see any evidence of canvassing. Jujutacular ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]