Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg

File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg, Featured

Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 19:07:34

•  Info created by Paulrudd - uploaded by Paulrudd - nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support imho this pic is close to perfect! Only thing that bugs me a bit is that I didn't make it. ;-) -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks great! --Lošmi (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --norro 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Natural R_X 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Will it be appropriate to remove "Hotel" signs from the photo and big lump on the man's right hand? --Ahnode (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It'd be unnecessary IMO. Are we trying to make portraits of people edited for advertisements? I wouldn't do it on the basis of celebrating 'natural beauty'. --Natural R_X 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fine with a man, but those signs just ruin the atmosphere, they could be easily removed. --Ahnode (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I would prefer to keep the picture as it is. This is a documentary photograph, not a work of art, although it's an excellent picture. -- MartinD (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I firmly agree: If we want to use this picture in Wikipedia, we don't want some idealized world without advertisement, but rather documentation of what a place looks like. And artificially removing something from a person's body is heinous; it suggests that this man should better be looking differently before some people can tolerate or like his appearance. That's deeply insulting. Every person on earth is beautiful enough to be featured without articial enhancing. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• thanks, all those comments are very motivating. the photo comes straight from the camera, but i could easily remove the hotel signs, or that piece of cloth in the foreground (but not the lump, that would be silly), or slightly crop it (i'll probably do it for my personal version). whatever it is that's best. --Paulrudd (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Why remove the signs and the cloth, it givs the picture the right realism, the cloth even a greater...tension.--alpinus5 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment totally agree with alpinus5. As long as there is no sign of a "fast food temple" in the back, there is no need to do anything. Some things should just be left as they are...if the pic comes straight from the camera like this - even better. This pic really makes me wanna jump in an air plane to see the world. :)--AngMoKio (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Doucus (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support And please don't remove the cloth at least. I would leave all 3 hotel-signs alone too. Haros (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good composition. --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support photographic excellence --ianaré (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Exquisite -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - I do like this - well captured --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)