Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panorama from Har HaAri

Panorama from Har HaAri
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 10:12:00 (UTC)
 * Reason:because it isn't similar to most existing pictures of the galilee in wikipedia and is unique and in high resolution and because it shows things that cannot be seem otherwise (for example har kamon, the hill in the middle of the picture, is shown clearly and in relation to other places like the village rameh)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Har HaAri, Upper Galilee, Rameh, Galilee
 * FP category for this image:Landscapes
 * Creator:Someone35


 * Support as nominator --Someone35 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, EV. Is used prominently in the articles and shows features that are best displayed from on high and with the panaroma.  (Not qualified to comment on technical aspects.)TCO (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It appears that "Har HaAri" was created by the User:Someone35 solely to have a place to put this picture. This user has uploaded and nominated for FP three pictures in one day; I don't think this type of self aggrandizement should be encouraged.--RDBury (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ^so you are basically against making new articles and uploading pictures? so what if i made a new page? is it bad?--Someone35 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Someone35; there's only something wrong with doing that if there's something wrong with the article. I've certainly created articles specifically to house my own pictures before- see Mycena arcangeliana. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're DEFINITELY NOT against creation of new content and articles, don't get that impression. We're glad your doing that, glad your uploading images and contributing, so don't get the wrong impression. But to claim EV on an article you just created for a nomination the nomination should probably meet the requirements of a WP:DYK nomination as well. To give you an example, to successfully nominate this picture (File:Elakala Waterfalls Swirling Pool Mossy Rocks.jpg) required the creation and DYK of Elakala Falls that article. Without doing that then the other articles the picture was in at time of nomination probably wasn't enough EV to justify it being a FP. Also noting that the article when I just viewed it clearly needs work, it has the beginning of a section that just abruptly ends and the picture is WAY to big, please observe our guidelines for pictures (Manual_of_Style). Without better EV I'll also have to Oppose this picture. If you can bring Har HaAri up to WP:DYK standards then I may change that... — raeky  t  21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture is used prominently in three other articles that are more clearly notable. I did a search on that hill and couldn't find much in English.  But don't think we should worry about that issue here.  You can still evaluate the use of the photo for the other articles, say the town in particular.TCO (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the hill behind it isn't really special as there are many hills and mountains in that area. again the reason that this picture has an EV is because you get an aerial view of the galilee and you can also see in that image things that you wouldn't see from the ground. Also I added now a Geographic Location template to make it more clear where is each thing--Someone35 (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It could have decent EV for the city that is in the valley or the valley if it has a name... just as options for places to put the picture that would have good EV for... Unless this valley/city is notable and relevant for the whole Upper Galilee or Galilee then it contributes little to those articles. Your best bet for EV is to improve and show notability for Har HaAri or find out and see if we have an article for if not create one for the valley... I don't think it contributes greatly to Rameh due to the majority of the city being obscured by the trees and terrain. — raeky  t  15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Stitching issues (curved horizon namely), and the stuff in the distance seems out of focus. Good EV in my view though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The stitch is fine, how else did you want me to stitch it? I took photos and connected them together, the panorama itself is seamless, also it shows Mediterranean vegetation which also adds to the EV--Someone35 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A bowed/curved horizon is a stitching error, that can be corrected for in a decent stitching program... — raeky  t  15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be fixed? In order to fix it I'll have to leave black parts in the edge of the picture and then you'll complain about it too...--Someone35 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know what software you used, but Hugin (software) can do it. It stretches, expands and distorts as needed so you don't get black bars to keep something like the horizon straight... — raeky  t  18:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the regular stitching software that comes with Canon cameras (zoom browser), and if that software distorts and stretches the image doesn't it ruin the quality of the image?--Someone35 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Every panorama stitch involves distortion of some sort, that doesn't mean it ruins the quality.  Jujutacular  talk 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Last I checked, the horizon is curved, so making it a straight line is actually an unrealistic distortion. I'm of course being facetious, but I think it would just be personal preference as to whether or not this kind of shot has a curved horizon; I can't see a way to avoid it when looking down the town from such an angle. The only things I'm not a fan of is that the valley and beyond are ever so slightly out of focus, and I don't like how hazy the background is. Any chance of going back on a clear day to get the same shot? - Running On Brains (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, allow me to echo the sentiment that we are very supportive of new contributions of encyclopedic pictures and articles. Also, that Hugin is an amazing (and free!) software, and I highly recommend it for panoramas.- Running On Brains (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is curved, but very slightly, you wouldn't see it in a scenic like this, the curve here is clearly a distortion. — raeky  t  02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about 3 hours driving from my house and I'm not old enough to drive a car on my own, but I think I'll go that area in late August so I'll take a picture of that place again. I'll download now that Hugis and restitch the panorama so it won't be curved--Someone35 (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) EDIT: ok here it is, is this one better?: Fixed panorama from har haari.jpg


 * On the issue of the haze, you might want to try a UV filter. -Vcelloho (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a UV filter does anything for digital. A polariser is more helpful, but you do get some uneven brightness in the sky.
 * Most of the curved horizon here is caused by the presumably cylindrical projection. Adjusting hugin so the midpoint is near the horizon would fix the problem. All panorama stitchers will warp the images etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find that option or a tutorial explaining how to do that, is that a serious problem or the new picture I uploaded is good enough?--Someone35 (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its getting pretty close, but I'd like to see it fixed. If you upload the individual images somewhere I can have a go if you like. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, here are the links to the 4 images, first second third fourth. thank you very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Panorama_from_Har_HaAri_restitch.jpg is my own attempt made on the presumption that the cloud band should be roughly level. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you do it? I can clearly see the difference between your stitch and my stitch but where in Hugin can you do that? Where is the option that you can use to make a straight panorama?--Someone35 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * k, i'll follow this for the next picture but now the voting is over, according to the rules i won in a 0.5 difference (weak opposes count as -0.5). so i'll do what it says in the bottom of the page in a few minutes--Someone35 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

--Someone35 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC) you voted after the voting ended, there were 2 supports against 1.5 opposes (a weak oppose counts as 0.5 oppose), therefore my picture is promoted.--Someone35 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the promotion rules for FPC, to be promoted you need AT LEAST 5 supports, and do you have that here? No. — raeky  t  15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not my fault that nobody voted here. also note the red text, "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." --Someone35 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Makeemlighter wasn't voting he was closing. — raeky  t  16:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry i saw he wrote "support"...--Someone35 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

so now i'm supposed to wait till 5 people support this photo?--Someone35 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It didn't reach the minimum number of supports within the 9-day time period, so it was not promoted. You're welcome to re-nominate it at some point in the future. Apologies for not being clear earlier.

Makeemlighter (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * but there is another picture of space or something like that below this one that is from april and it still didn't over, was i supposed to reach 5 supports in an 9 days period?--Someone35 (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes if an image is EXACTLY at 2/3rds majority and/or regular closers have voted and can't close and/or it's not clear which image should be promoted if there is alts, it will sit in the waiting area until it gets closed, sometimes for a long time... but in this case this is a clear cut case where it didn't receive enough supports. — raeky  t  21:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of meanies. It passed 2.0-1.5! A squeeker! ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)