Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kaaba II

Kaaba[edit]

Reason: Something different to the usual western images that go through FPC. An earlier version of this image was nominated at FPC last year and just missed out on promotion. It went back up on PPR and I'm nominating this touched up version from there.; Most of the opposes at FPC last year were to do with the quality being average and it being 'easily reproducible'. Well, the edit has upped the quality, and as the PPR nom says, no better pictures have been forthcoming. Given that photography is, let's say, 'highly discouraged' in here, neither are they likely to be anytime soon, thus rather counteracting the 'easily reproducible' argument.; Highly encyclopaedic and attractively composed, this is one of the best photos available of the Kaaba on the internet, and has since been picked up by several news services.
Articles this image appears in: Kaaba
Hajj
Muhammad
Most sacred sites
Masjid al-Haram
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator jjron (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support better alternatives are not available. Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely encyclopedic. Would prefer a panorama shot, if a replacement can be found. Until then, this gets my vote. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Top enc goes ahead of quality, supporting since no better has been offered. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality and small size while it's not historically significant.--Svetovid (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if this same photo was 'historic' (from say 100 years ago) you'd possibly overlook your quality concerns? Muhammad can correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point here is that this is the same thing these people would have been doing 100 or 500 years ago - in other words this is definitely historically significant, and I don't see that the age of the photo itself changes that. You just don't get photos of this. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the people are doing and wearing in this picture would have been the same, as jjron said. So it is historically significant. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that Svetovid's point is that we sometimes make exceptions from technical quality requirements for images which display a significant historical event and therefore could not be retaken. That isn't the case here; this is a recent photo of a regular event, so could be retaken. TSP (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a regular event, but as jjron pointed out in the nomination, taking pictures is discouraged in these areas. With the tight security and the crowds, it is difficult to take any decent shot. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. "So it is historically significant." Thanks for the opinion but I don't think so.--Svetovid (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is nothing special enough in this picture to justify a promotion to FP. Technically, its is on the low side (size, sharpness, detail), and the fact that it is probably the best available picture depicting the subject is not a valid reason. Of course, its enc value is not affected by not being a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On wikipedia, unlike commons, encyclopedic value is a greater factor than quality. You have acknowledged its encylopedic value. And that itself is a reason to allow it to be featured. Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria allows for exceptions to be made for unique images. This image is also among wikipedia's best works, satisfying the 3rd criterion. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Svetovid--CPacker (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is the best that wikipedia has to offer. -- carol (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Problems with compression artifacts, noise and focus, which becomes most clear when you look at the people in the front; also problems with the composition, the two minarets almost seem to be on top of the Kaaba structure; so image fails featured picture criteria #1. I'm sure there are better photos of this topic. – Ilse@ 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to ask but can you please give an example of a better image? Muhammad(talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind you asking. I'm not sure any of the pictures in commons:Category:Kaaba would pass a featured picture nomination on Wikipedia. I think a wider version of this cut off photo would make a fairly good chance. Also, I believe that this photo is of higher quality than the current nomination, although it has no good focus. – Ilse@ 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This photo is 650x601 px, which is way below the minimum size requirements. The image does not have much detail too. The 2nd photo was nominated here and recieved only one support, and that too from the nominator, making the one nominated here a suitable candidate. Muhammad(talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, if I understand correctly, when asked to show us a better quality image, the answer is to show worse quality images - and that's apparently a suitable reply? --jjron (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure there are better photos of this topic possible. – Ilse @ 08:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a bit of an absurd argument though - I doubt there's an FP that you couldn't argue that it's possible we could get a better photo for. Of course it's possible, but we're not seeing it, which maybe suggests it's at least unlikely. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the compositions of both images I suggested are more interesting than of the nominated image. If their technical quality was better, they would have a chance as an FP candidate. – Ilse @ 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just because it's highly encyclopedic doesn't mean a poor quality image should be featured. The composition is good, though an overview image would give readers a better idea of the massive scale of the crowd. The image is supposed to depict the Kaaba, but the focus seams to be at the background buildings. --Krm500 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: yearly event, still ongoing, quite reasonable to expect much higher standards. gren グレン 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its 8 months since I last hear this and I still haven't seen any better images. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Use software to convert it into a cross stitch design.... -- carol (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - but that line of argument would go for thousands of other articles with mediocre images that could be taken. My recommendation is go on Islamic forums, ask friends, etc. find people who have better images and then get an OTRS for permission from them. gren グレン 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - despite enc, very poor quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting subject, but it needs to be a much higher quality photo.--TBC !?! 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Let's not do a disservice because we can't find a better photo.D-rew (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Featured status is out of question and per other opposes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close can not be used here. In case you didn't notice, the picture has received 5 supports. Muhammad(talk) 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy Close can obviously be used here and the maximum voted are oppose votes. Poor quality image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it cannot. You've made plenty of quality edits, so I assume you're not being malicious or stupid, but you need to familiarize yourself with how this part of WP works before you nominate or vote for more images. A speedy close is appropriate when the image under consideration obviously and objectively fails to fulfill one or more of the criteria used to judge FPCs (with appropriate leniency for historical works). This image does NOT objectively fail any of the criteria and therefore should NOT be speedy closed. This nom is going to pass or fail based on how voters want to weigh the possibility of there being a higher quality photo made available. That is entirely subjective, so we need to go through the normal procedure. Matt Deres (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on technical quality. I do sympathise on the difficulty of taking the shot and the lack of better alternatives, and it's a good image for the articles, but still, I don't think it's Featured Picture quality, and the existence of other photos, even if they're worse, suggests that a new image, which could be better, COULD be taken. The problems with this one don't seem to relate to the difficulty of the shot, rather to the quality of the camera. I don't think that promotion should be based on happening to be the best shot currently available to us; hopefully a lack of great images on a topic will spur photographers on to the challenge of taking a great image for it, rather than resting on our laurels with what we have. TSP (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support On an EV basis, this is obviously FP material, and as long as the quality isn't distracting I'm willing to overlook some flaws. SingCal 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It's a flawed picture, but I think the difficulty in obtaining the shot over-rides the problems. To adequately shoot this scene, you're probably looking at a tripod setup and that just doesn't sound feasible. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a place such as Mekkah, the image has very high standards. This pic has its primary subject, the Kaaba out of focus.EgraS (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Medrano man (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SingCal --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose – Too small, low technical quality, has a feel of a holiday snapshot. A much better one can be taken. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]