Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:I'timād-ud-Daulah, Agra.jpg

I'timād-ud-Daulah
Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 10:41:01 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality, EV, res, few Indian FPs
 * Articles in which this image appears:Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, Mirza Ghiyas Beg, Mughal architecture
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent detail (probably didn't need to be downsampled so substantially?), near enough perfect perspective correction and nice composition. A formulaic but excellently taken photo. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Diliff. No reason not to that I can see... gaz hiley  16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good technicals judging by the above supports and clear EV. I would, however, like to stress that in my mind "few Indian FPs" is most definitely not a reason. The only question similar is whether this photograph on this topic is undermined in EV by us having better photographs of the same thing (it is not, the "Mausoleum" photograph should probably be removed). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a strong objection as to why good images like Humayun's Tomb from the entrance, Delhi.jpg and Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg have been removed by Mr. Karim from the articles to adjust his own photographs.Sanyambahga (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not really the place to discuss those changes, you should bring it up on the article talk pages. Muhammad added the images over 10 days ago and there has been no discussion or reversions since then, so as far as FPC is concerned, there is no problem. I personally think that his image is better than either of the images you linked to. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) --Muhammad (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sanyambahga, is there an aspect of the two images that you linked which makes them more suitable for the Mughal architecture article that they were removed from? It seems the replacements are better quality and also very encyclopaedic.  Would you mind explaining the objection further?  Julia\talk  14:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the FPC should replace Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg as the lead image in the article Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, but Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg should have atleast been inserted into the gallery by Muhammad. -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think File:Itmad-ud-Daula 24.JPG does have a distinct EV as it illustrates the relationship between the gateway and the mausoleum. The scope of the article is the whole complex, not simply the mausoleum. As such is valuable and I re-added it to the gallery of the article. However this image is far superior in providing a detailed overview of the mausoleum itself. If the two would be of similar quality, I think it would be a reasonable debate as to which should be in the lead. -- ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A symmetry shot has to be symmetrical. The lower third section with the path is out of whack, so it looks slightly tilted. The composition is unimaginative: a straight-on view, taken in harsh daylight (dimmed somewhat by the pollution haze) that bleaches out the colour and flattens tones, with no apparent consideration of the effects - negative or otherwise - of the shadows. An uninspiring postcard pic of a lesser-known monument in an area full of them. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be suspended if there's a dispute over its placement? I thought that was the usual procedure... Samsara (FA • FP) 08:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there really is any significant dispute. Nothing has been raised officially on the talk page of the articles. As I mentioned above, the image has been sitting happily in the articles for 10 days without any disputes and it wasn't until the image was nominated that any complaint was made. I'm confident that the image can remain in the article as it's clearly the most detailed image available. Any dispute resolution would likely involve re-adding the removed images (if deemed to be useful), rather than removing Muhammad's image. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that whether the dispute is brought up here or on the talk page is a particularly significant detail to the question of whether a dispute has arisen. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well any dispute should go through the appropriate channels, surely? Until such times, I don't think the dispute is in any way official. In any case, I don't think this potential dispute is grounds for suspension of the nomination. If against all odds, the image is removed from all the articles and becomes ineligible for FP, then we could always just run a delist. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor license and down sampled? -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are not valid reasons according to the FPC Criteria. The license is acceptable according to both wikimedia and wikipedia and the image is of considerably high resolution at 5.6mp coming from a 10mp camera --Muhammad (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strike off my opposition per the arguments by Muhammad. (But I'm not sure why a document license is used for a media. I don't like people selling original works and gifting down-sampled/cropped ones here. I don't know whether this is a reasonable argument, not any evidence for any particular user.) -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As the image is not geocoded, if you remember, could you please specify in the description which façade do we see? -- ELEKHHT 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This was the view opposite to the main entrance --Muhammad (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's from the west, thanks, support now. -- ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I find some of the alternate photos of the buildings more interesting but this one has superior size. Technical quality and EV are good. Pine✉ 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)