Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Igreja de Santo Ildefonso

Igreja de Santo Ildefonso

Ildephonsus of Toledo. Built between 1709 and 1739, the 11,000 azulejos

on the façade were added in 1932.

Reason: Okay, this time I'm sure . . . sharp and clear! :-) Great resolution. (I'm atoning for previous sins, :P)
Articles in which this image appears

Support as nominator —
talk 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Nice, but why ruin it with the tight bottom crop? --Dschwen 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if Joaquim sees the nomination, he'll have a good explanation for us, :)
talk 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I think this is just awesome even with the way it's cropped. Not the easiest thing to review, but I at least found no stitching problems. Detail was preserved in the shadows - good job. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. Durova⁴¹² 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this viewer: (flash/no flash) may be useful for review. --Dschwen 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful, weak oppose. Very good detail, but regarding the composition I agree with Dschwen, the bottom crop is really painful. The staircase is quite an important element of the building. --Elekhh (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Dschwen... btw where did you find that viewer? that's great... And how do we/I use that for all the pics? Gazhiley (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The viewer is based on IIP. I wrote a little wrapper on the toolserver that takes care of the image fetching and preprocessing. You can enable the ZoomViewer gadget in your commons preferences to have the viewer links appear on every image page on commons. --Dschwen 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Eleknh. It's visually jarring how it cuts off the gate and stairs. The people ( especially that one bewildered guy) are somewhat distracting, but forgivable if there were no other problems. Per Eleknh's link, the church is more elevated (or the courtyard more sunken) than this crop would lead you to think. Fletcher (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like Alves to comment on the bottom issue. If this image cannot be for some reason taken with the bottom not cut off, I will go ahead and support it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, look at the picture Elekhh linked to in his comment above. It is basically the same angle with the stairs. --Dschwen 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not notice the linked image. Sorry. Then it is of course Oppose--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the flag(pole)s cut off at the top. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you suggesting a choice has to be made between flag poles and stairs? --Dschwen 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm flag-ergasted that a more obvious answer to this question is not stair-ing us in the face... Maybe suggest re-take from 10 paces further back? Gazhiley (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a stitched image. Simply pointitng the camera down and a few more clicks would have done the trick IMO --Muhammad(talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, yes, I completely agree. It was more of a rethorical question ;-). It also is worth pointing out, that the Elekhh image is taken from further back which effectively lowers the fence line in the picture and shows a bit more of the roof. --Dschwen 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Yes, I did include the whole stairway but a couple of tourists going up the stairs ruined the bottom row of pictures... Thanks for the nomination Maedin but I wouldn't have done it myself due to the poor framing (not only in the bottom). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that the stairs were such a feature. I apologise if you're disappointed by the nomination. The article was the important thing, though, and the image will be on the main page soon with its DYK hook, :)
talk 21:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

- Not disappointed at all! Good to be friend of optimistic people... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]