Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita Shah, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg

Mezquita Shah===File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg, featured=== Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 04:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are already two FPs of this mosque - File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpg and File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg - but neither of them shows this or any other colorful tilework, so if like me, you consider this spectacular, I think it's appropriate to vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are actually those 2 FPs plus these three FPs of that mosque (is getting really popular :)): 1, 2, 3. Number 2 is of the same type but a different location. I've no problem with that :) Poc o² 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Come to think of it, I believe I looked for FPs only in Category:Masjed-e Shah, Isfahan (interior). Two of those shots are not really interior, and the other is categorized under "dome interior". I'm not sure why there's been no interest in this photo so far. If anyone thinks there's a problem with having this many FPs of one mosque, ask yourself if you'd feel that way if we were considering St. Peter's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan I'm not sure your suggestion that religion (or attitudes towards) is a factor here. The photo that Poco suggests is most similar is I think more geometrically and compositionally interesting than this. It has a star shape to the geometry, which also provides leading lines. This photo is cropped much closer and in fact is slightly too cropped at the top, which is a shame. As a thumb, on the FPC page, perhaps it is just not catching the eye. Sometimes, also, we get used to seeing similar nominations, and could do with a break from them, to see with fresh eyes. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all logical. I'm not sure my point came across the way I intended, though. If it seems like I was suggesting prejudice on anyone's part, that wasn't my intention at all; I just picked St. Peter's as a religious building that would be familiar to everyone and unlikely to provoke any feelings that we would have too many FPs of it, providing they were of different parts of the basilica. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin and Ikan Kekek: I promise to improve the crop and will also balance the exposure overall a bit, please, give me 2 more days to do so. Poc o² 22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please, let me know what you think. Poc o² 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little bit overdone near the bottom but ... I could look at these colors forever. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and interesting tile artwork. Crop at the top is unfortunate. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of geommetry IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Navigation menu