Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Naghshe Jahan Square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Naghshe Jahan Square

Naghshe Jahan Square, the biggest historic square in the world. Isfahan, Iran.

Here is Edit 2 for those who didn't like the black part. Thanks in advance for your votes.

Reason

It's one of the best images of this square with free licence. The composition is good and it has high resolution. It's not easy to get a shot from this position.

Articles this image appears in

Persian Empire, Safavid dynasty, Isfahan, Naghsh-i Jahan Square

Creator

Arad

Nominator

Arad

• Support — Arad 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice image. Good display of Persian architecture. I find that the people and cars dont distract from the image because of its power and the subjects presence. --Midnight Rider
• Oppose Compression artifacts, visible especially on the dome on the left, around the minarets of the iwan, and the sky is splotchy too. ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice picture but not special enough for FP. Composition is just fine, photographic quality is poor. The geometric manipulation of the original image should be explained here - Alvesgaspar 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Midnight Rider. DragonRouge 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. OOh. Nice picture. I think this one is better than the one I put on Iranian architecture.--Zereshk 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per trialsanderrors, doesn't have the FP feel to me --Tobyw87 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • Strong Oppose Edit 2 Even without the black part of the picture its still not up to FP standards. At full resolution the picture is fuzzy and just not good enough to be placed on the front page exemplifyling wikipedia. I am also very weary about the number of people from iranian origin voting on this picture. It is irrelevant where or what the picture is, if its not up to FP standards its not a FP. --Tobyw87 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The jet-black arch, with no detail on it whatsoever, spoils the pic for me - Adrian Pingstone 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, would have been a good candidate for HDR. Noclip 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what is HDR? and Thanks all for your votes --66.36.136.46 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't mind the black arch, it gives a nice frame, nice composition to the photo. And it is a very attractive scene. For me it's the blown highlights/lack of detail, especially in the columns/wall to the left and the reflections on the dome. Still a very nice photo well done. --Bridgecross 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Does it help if i take out the reflections on domes? --Arad 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Beautiful picture, very stunning and artistic. 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Vote & comment by Khodavand - Alvesgaspar 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's very pretty!. Nice job! :-) Ilikefood 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose nice but has JPEG artifacts, and is a little blurry. Arjun 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you tell me where do you exactly see those artifacts? Thank you. --66.36.156.106 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support nice setting and view. --Mardavich 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice shot with good enough resolution. - Marmoulak 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone else noticed the disproportional number of Iranian users are voting to support this image? Users which do not typically vote on FPC... --Fir0002 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well i think that's the point of having FPC template on the image page. This image appears on Iran related articles and those who see the image page, also see the FPC template. --66.36.145.255 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly, but it's highly unusual for an image to get the vast majority of it's support from new users (to FPC) who read the articles it appears in. Also in future please make sure to sign in when posting comments (I assume those IP's are you Arad) --Fir0002 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for anonymous comments. My Internet had some problems. Also, even if some of voters are new, i don't see a problem in that either. --Arad 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have this on my userpage, its a great pic! Support!Azerbaijani 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Mabye if you make an edit where you cut off the top so that the black is no longer there, it might look alot better. If it is I will support that version. Why1991 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Seems to be a pretty low quality scan of a not overly spectacular/rare/historic scene. With today's cheap but decent quality digicams (and DSLR's!) a high quality image should be possible. On a side note this nomination seems a bit reminiscent of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan --Fir0002 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty old Fir. Digicams didnt exist at the time this photo was taken. --Arad 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per all comments above. Quality and graininess leave a lot to be desired in this image Krowe 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per norm. --Rayis 11:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I like to see a picture from Iran, Specialy Isfahan, on the main page but honestly the quality and resolution is very low. Next time try with a better camera. Good luck. Hessam 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — My reasons:
  1. Is this a photograph or a scan? It looks more like the latter, so if it is a scan, then please post the source. Either way, it is of poor technical quality (though the actual composition is wonderful).
  2. There are the blown highlights on the building and various objects to the left.
  3. The dome on the left seems to be blurred or smudged.
  4. There are many artifacts, particularly visible around the domes and minarets. ♠ SG →Talk 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Answer to your questions I'm going to make this clear for everyone. As it's the case for my images, It's been a very long time since I last been to Iran. In fact, I've never returned since i left. These images are scanned and I hope one day, when i have the opportunity to pa ya visit, get better quality images. Probably this summer. --Arad 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just another question. Have you been on top of this place when you were taking this picture? Hessam 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the reason i said it's not easy to tak ea shot from this position. --Arad 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A scan of what? A book? A family album? If you did not personally take this photo, the licensing is incorrect, since you cannot claim GFDL for someone else's work (even if you scan it in). ♠ SG →Talk 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes family album. --Arad 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, well that's fine then. Could you get more information on the photo? Particularly, what date was it taken on? Also, is the photo itself of good quality? If so, try to rescan it and save it as PNG-24 or uncompressed JPEG. The artifacts are caused by saving it with too much compression in JPEG. This is a really nice photo; I would like to support it, it's just the quality of the scan itself that is bothersome. ♠ SG →Talk 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah sure. I'm about to buy a good scanner, and as soon as i got a good quality scanner, I'll rescan this. --Arad 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually I think the arched version of the photo is better. The Square is surrounded by Arcades and vaults from all sides. And the square is studied in all classes of history of architecture in all universities because of its design (geometry, arcades, domes, historical context). So it is important to note that the photo is being taken from under the arch.--Zereshk 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sorry, but I don't see anything special about it. Looks like any snap shot of a public square to me. --Mactographer 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. A rather bad scan of a rather normal shot. NauticaShades 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. If for no other reason than very noticeable JPEG artifacts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• SupportI like this picture .Bewareofdog 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)