Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Andafiavaratra Palace

Andafiavaratra Palace
Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 00:54:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a fine photo showing home of the Prime Minister of Madagascar, taken on a clear day in Antananarivo. About the only way to get a better angle of the building from this distance is to be hovering in a helicopter over the side of the step hill it is sitting on top of.  I had access to the balcony of a college student's residence, which provided a direct shot of the building.  There is no significant compression artifacts or image noise that I can see.  The photo is of a historical site in Madagascar, and more featured articles are likely to display it as Lemurbaby continues pumping out FAs for Madagascar's cultural history.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Andafiavaratra Palace, Rainilaiarivony
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Maky (formerly Visionholder)


 * Support as nominator --– Maky  « talk » 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per poor composition. Tree blocking the building, houses blocking the building and then getting cut off, random van and worker along the bottom (quite blurred and thus even more distracting). An encyclopedic picture, but not feature worthy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Short of cutting down the tree, I don't see how anyone could rectify that problem. As I said, this is the best angle you'll get short of sitting in a helicopter.  You can stand at the base of it, but it would be hard to see anything more than just the front of it.  Also, there are always people and vans on the street.  The man could probably be edited out... but still, given that it's a tourist destination, this is pretty hard to beat.  (The van was for shuttling tourists.)  –  Maky  « talk » 03:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite sorry, but I feel as if the tree blocking the way detracts too much from the image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Trees and other buildings in the way. Clegs (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Trees blocking the view may not be a sufficient reason for opposing. Since this is in the tropics, it's unclear the view of the building is ever better than this, and people might equally oppose for defoliated trees. I don't know this site, but it seems the vantage point was deliberately chosen. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and not just because this is my nomination. There certainly seems to be cultural bias, no doubt the same type that has led to the denuding of terrain surrounding many Meso American ruins.  I guess if it makes the photo-hungry Western tourists happy, then it's the right thing to do... –  Maky  « talk » 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Having been to this site, I can confirm Maky's point about there being no better vantage point other than renting a helicopter (and even then there will probably be trees in the way). The building is on a narrow ridge with steep slopes on either side, and a shot from above or below it would provide a strange angle. As far as whether this is an important subject for a featured photo, I can confirm that this is a very important historic building in Madagascar's capital city, being the palace of the former prime minister Rainilaiarivony, and also currently a museum that houses historic artifacts related to the 19th century Kingdom of Madagascar that were saved from the nearby Queen's palace compound when it burned in a fire/arson in 1995. It was recently in the news when Queen Ranavalona III's crown was stolen from here in January. In terms of the quality of the photo itself, it's really a beautiful shot of the building. The colors are strong, the lighting is good, and capturing the palace at this angle allows the viewer to really appreciate the size and architectural design of the building in a way that a straight-on shot would obscure. There are trees planted at the corners of the compound so they will naturally obscure some of the building but the landscapting is an element of the design of the compound. The image has sufficiently high resolution. Buildings in crowded city centers will inevitably have people or cars near them, but I don't find that these detract from the shot of the building itself (I don't find them a distraction). Lemurbaby (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it is an important and notable building. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry to oppose as is a good picture and I understand great effort has been taken for getting a good vantage point. But this is a rather uncharacteristic view (college student's residence), having less EV than seen from the city, and not really illustrating the architecture that well either. From this vantage point much of the building facade is obscured, and the overlap between the corner tower and the dome is unfortunate (unlike here). I think this building is best illustrated by multiple images, one from the city and maybe a close-up of the whole facade. -- ELEKHHT 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my access to a college student's living space (the "uncharacteristic view") can be held against the photo. WTF?  Seriously?  For the record, the first photo you linked to was probably taken by a tourist either legally or illegally standing on someone's roof.  (And, yes, tourists do that kind of stuff there. Gotta love Westerners...)  Otherwise, the overlap with a corner tower and the dome is inevitable if you want to show that there are four towers and not just two.  Anyway, most buildings are best illustrated with multiple images if you have any appreciation of architecture.  But I guess given how FPC is defined as an elitist club of only a select few of the best photos, rather than recognizing high-quality photos of encyclopedic content, I guess it's fair to say to that a single photo is sufficient for structures we like to appreciate from only one angle, but any other structure couldn't be featured because there are too many angles needed to fully appreciate it.  I can see how architecturally complex structures in compact third-world urban centers that still try to maintain some foliage shouldn't be included in FP.
 * And no, I'm not picking on you, Elekhh. I've followed voting at FPC for a while, and I have seen more blatantly biased and clique-based voting here than anywhere else.  So I'm a little burnt out and put off.  But don't worry, I won't be coming back to FPC. –  Maky  « talk » 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry this process upsets you that much. You shouldn't take criticism personally, and I think I argued my position. Adding to that, as somebody who appreciates architecture, I don't think the building has been designed to look good from this vantage point, but the other two I indicated. Regarding FPC contributors being a small group you are probably right to some extent, but please don't accuse me of following some kind of group interest, as I am not. I would like to encourage you to obtain further opinions on Commons, where you can nominate your image for Featured, Quality and/or Valued status. See what other people/forums think, my opinion is just one of many. -- ELEKHHT 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)