Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Baalbek Temple Complex

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 13:20:22 (UTC)

Reason: Panorama that reveals the Great court of Baalbek temple complex with great details.
Articles in which this image appears: Baalbek
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Eusebius

Support as nominator --Banzoo (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. the foreground wall is a little distracting, because of the (necessary) distortion. It might be better to cut, say, 50-100 px from the bottom, to get rid of the sliver of the middle of the wall. Not sure. However, this really is an astounding image, and deserves my full support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment. Wouldn’t this image be more practical if it were down-sampled to half its current resolution? Once I click the magnify button, even on a 2560-pixel monitor, it’s like looking around the world through a soda straw. Too large of an image isn’t enough of a reason to vote ‘oppose’. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may use the Large Image Viewer that can be found under the picture in the File page ;-). Wikimedia allows also to get a resized picture by choosing the thumb size you need. --Banzoo (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know about that. It’s a very nice tool; (yeah, I know about the pref for the thumb size; that isn’t available to I.P. users is it?) But I doubt one in a hundred I.P. users will avail themselves of the tool if/when this goes to the main page. The current image is 45 MB to download. A 50-percent-per-axis downsample would result in an 11 MB file, which would be much more practical to download and pan around in. Greg L (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Outsanding quality and great EV. I'd also support a crop/downsample. NauticaShad es 13:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would be strongly opposed to downsampling. The 'warning' sign is quite apparent on the file description page and the link provides easy access to very viewable sizes of the image. It is very high quality at full resolution and so downsampling serves no technical purpose. Oh yeah - and my rationale - beautiful image, very sharp, and plenty of EV. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Support A perfect example of how to use a panorama to great effect to illustrate a historical site. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampling as the FP - Support offering a courtesy copy and/or link which is downsampled when it's on the mainpage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden’s idea works for me. Most I.P. editors aren’t going to know about the Large Image Viewer and some 99.9% will simply suffer the 45 MB download and noodle around looking at the image through a soda straw. Greg L (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the large image browser thing is in the large image template which is right below the commons link, I've been mulling over an idea of how to make that link more visible and look better, but I haven't found a good icon for it. The tool is very useful and it should probably be made MUCH more accessible to random viewers, imho. It's also very common practice to have a smaller version uploaded and linked in the large image's description page as well for people, so I would support that as well. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]