Sultan Ahmed Mosque

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2014 at 04:23:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, very attractive view of the mosque and its courtyard at night.

Articles in which this image appears

Sultan Ahmed Mosque+2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Benh LIEU SONG

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Beautiful --Muhammad(talk) 05:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - yup, that works... --Godot13 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Hafspajen (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 21:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support chsh (talk) 20141116093453
• Support The usual exceptional quality from Benh. One comment though: The vertical field of view is so large in this picture that the geometric distortions introduced by insisting on keeping all vertical lines strictly vertical in the photo (I am especially thinking about the two towers) get too strong. Visually it looks a bit for me like the towers bend out-wards - because my eye and brain expects them to converge due to perspective. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Far more serious than any distortions of the towers is the gross distortion of the facade of the building, which is in reality flat, not curved as this picture shows. This fault renders the picture totally devoid of encyclopedic value, and so misleading that, far from becoming a featured picture, it probably should be removed from the articles in which it appears. Anyone looking at this picture gets a completely false impression of the building's architecture. 86.145.139.73 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi! Long time no see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support While I agree with the above comments on the curve being a little factually incorrect (btw why don't you register as a user, and then your comments will actually be able to be counted as you can vote?!), I disagree with this being 'totally devoid of encyclopedic value' as no-one would seriously look at this picture and seriously think it was a curved building? Anyone who has ever seen pictures of large buildings in single pictures will have seen this effect before. IMO it is a lovely picture, well taken... gazhiley 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment, Gaz, that was smart. Hafspajen (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not entirely sure what you are meaning, but thanks? gazhiley 11:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Anyone who has ever seen pictures of large buildings in single pictures will have seen this effect before" - you won't see such photographs in textbooks on architecture, they would be discarded as trash (in fact, they would not even reach that discarding stage, no professional photographer would dare present them at all). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Wow - Bellus Delphina ^talk 02:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose A gimmicky clichéd photograph devoid of encyclopedic value. Distorts reality. Reveals nothing of the building it purports to illustrate. As architectural photography, it is laughable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Blue Mosque Courtyard Dusk Wikimedia Commons.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]