Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Kaaba
- Versions
-
The Kaaba, a large cuboidal building located inside the Masjid al-Haram, is one of Muslims' holiest places. This picture taken from the gate of King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, seems to to divide the Kaaba and the minarets into mirror images of one another. -
Alternative -
Edit of Original -
Edit of Alternative
One of the first images that I nominated at FPC was this kaaba picture. Till the final day, it was leading, however, surprisingly it received three opposes and failed. Those who opposed said that the picture was from a mobile and hence not good enough and as the hajj season occurred every year, a better picture would be found. Around 8 months and another hajj season has passed, but no better images uploaded. These images are of the best free images available. It is difficult to get images of the Kaaba due to strict restrictions by the Saudi authorities prohibiting the taking of pictures. If caught you see your camera smashed on the ground right in front of you. A phone can always be easily hidden.
The original image is being used in the articles Hajj, Kaaba, Most sacred sites, Masjid al-Haram. It also appeared on several news websites during Dec 2007.
I have provided some edits, but they may not be very good. Please help out with edits if required.
- Nominated by
- Muhammad(talk) 09:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I think the composition of the original is far nicer than the alt. I was actually going to support this when first nominated, but didn't as I thought it was already through (as you suggest above). Sure quality isn't perfect, but I think rareness and difficulty compensates. The colouring in the edit is probably slightly more appealing. I would support this time, the only problem is that images usually seem to get a harder time on their 'second run'. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- So jjron, you suggest I go on and nominate the edit of the original? Muhammad(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would support, but doubt it would get the cruisy run of a historic shot, especially on the second go round. I just had a look back at the previous nom and wasn't sure what images there related to here (i.e., that had an Edit 1 and 2). Is the original here the same original from there? The edit here is also right on the size limit, just wondering why you downsized so much, and did you think this edit was better than any from the previous nom? --jjron (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The edits there did not get many supports, so I thought I could start afresh. The eidts here have been made by me, but I am no expert and would appreciate help if required. If you think another edit (larger) is required, could you please make one? Muhammad(talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've downloaded the full original and edit above. I'll have a look over the weekend. No promises that I'll be able to improve on your work though. I'll let you know the outcome. --jjron (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The edits there did not get many supports, so I thought I could start afresh. The eidts here have been made by me, but I am no expert and would appreciate help if required. If you think another edit (larger) is required, could you please make one? Muhammad(talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would support, but doubt it would get the cruisy run of a historic shot, especially on the second go round. I just had a look back at the previous nom and wasn't sure what images there related to here (i.e., that had an Edit 1 and 2). Is the original here the same original from there? The edit here is also right on the size limit, just wondering why you downsized so much, and did you think this edit was better than any from the previous nom? --jjron (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So jjron, you suggest I go on and nominate the edit of the original? Muhammad(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I was one of those late opposes. The quality is a bit fuzzy and the shadow line through the middle of the crowd in the original is, to me, distracting. The lighting in all of the alternates is unfortunate-- it's a pity that there isn't one that's mostly in sunshine rather than mostly in shade. I regret that the original isn't quite up to FP standards of sharpness; nonetheless it is a very valuable and encyclopedic photograph (Muhammad-- have you done the hajj more than once, or did you take this photo and the ihram clothing one during the same hajj?) Spikebrennan (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The original may not be up to normal FP standards, but surely exceptions can be made. All the historic images are not very good either yet most pass. The main reason the sunlight is limited is because the pictures were taken during the morning time when the crowd is relatively small. As the day goes on, the crowd increases and hardly does anybody get the proper standing place to take a decent picture. (I have done hajj only once, both the ihram and this were taken then.) Muhammad(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think that the original is the best of the four here. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The original may not be up to normal FP standards, but surely exceptions can be made. All the historic images are not very good either yet most pass. The main reason the sunlight is limited is because the pictures were taken during the morning time when the crowd is relatively small. As the day goes on, the crowd increases and hardly does anybody get the proper standing place to take a decent picture. (I have done hajj only once, both the ihram and this were taken then.) Muhammad(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder
Nominated at FPC by jjron. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)