Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa

Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa
Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014  at 15:29:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very high resolution and quality image of an iconic Portuguese monument, adding to the article. The best available in Wikimedia.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, Vila Viçosa, Vila Viçosa Municipality
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Alvesgaspar (talk)


 * Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I am using a reasonably high-spec PC, the full-size version of this will not display for me. I presume it is because it is too big. The next available size is only 1,280 × 328 pixels. I don't actually know how the size selection on the image pages works, but it would be nice to have something between the two, i.e. of manageable size to display but more detail than than the 1,280 × 328. 86.171.174.136 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's likely not the PC you're using that is stopping you from viewing it, it's the browser you're using. Some are better than others in dealing with high res images. Also, aren't you going to comment on how this image has no place on Wikipedia and should be deleted because the building appears curved? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the perspective is slightly faulty (modern technology just cannot seem to get it exactly right), this one is fairly tolerable because it does not mislead the viewer into thinking the building is a completely different shape to what it actually is in real life. Compare it to this one, which does. Can't you see the difference? For someone so ready to scoff, you seem to have a very limited understanding of this issue. 86.128.4.88 (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * IP, as you were told before, it can be (and has been) fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I have a pretty good understanding of it, as panoramic photography is kind of my thing. While I can see the difference between this image and the image you referred to, both have curvature of what should be straight lines as they were stitched (I believe) with the same panoramic projection: cylindrical. The only reason this image is 'less curved' is because the angle of view is narrower. The angle of view is narrower because the photographer was able to get further back from the subject which minimises this distortion. But getting further back isn't always possible due to geographic constraints. I accept that some panoramas do have extreme curvature which distorts the subject to the point where it is difficult to determine the true shape of the subject, but the same is true of 'normal' rectilinear photographs also. It's just that we've become accustomed to the kind of distortion that rectilinear projection creates, so we don't tend to notice it is there. Put simply, there is no way to project a three dimensional view onto a two dimensional surface (a print, a computer screen etc) without introducing distortion of some kind. I scoff because your comments rile me up with your annoying combination of a sense of righteousness and an over-sensitivity to any kind of distortion that isn't of the common rectilinear photographic paradigm. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right Diliff, between the two evils I decided for the slight curved lines of the equirectangular projection (which is very close to the cylindrical). The distortion would be minimized if the camera were centered with the building but then the angle would be less interesting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alves, I have no problem with the curvature and I think you probably made the right decision, although I would have thought that rectilinear projection wouldn't show too much distortion at the edges either. My comments above were more directed at the IP's previous opinions in other nominations on panoramic distortion and curvature of cylindrical projection. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Over-sensitivity? Sense of righteousness? What total rubbish you talk. I have pointed out maybe two or three gross distortions that badly misled the viewer as to the shape of the thing depicted. If that riles you on a page inviting comments about photographs then I suggest you go somewhere else. 86.160.222.169 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support As per nom. I have no issues with the full sized display on my computer. Mattximus (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support WOAH resolution! The picture itself is fairly plain, as is the building, but the resolution is high that you can actually see the detail work in the building.  There are little sculpted faces hidden throughout the architecture. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  14:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Very well done, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Nice! -- Ե րևանցի talk  04:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Nicely taken and very high resolution. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The architect was Nicolau de Frias. He should be mentioned in the caption. The date of construction is 16th century. The facade is panelled (or veneered, if you prefer) with grey and pink marble. The word "profile" is repeatedly used wrongly in the text of the article and would be best avoided. Amandajm (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support J e e  06:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)