Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Agdam

Delist and Replace: Aghdam_6.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 15:42:00 (UTC)

Original – Only a tiny subset of the new image.

Replacement - while this panorama is far from perfect, it is a 360 pano of the city with tags to individual images on Commons. For comparison the current FP is on the far right side, almost near the image border.

Reason: See panorama that includes the currently nominated image and a link (tag) to the same on commons.
Articles this image appears in: Agdam
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Agdam
Nominator: KennyOMG (talk)

Delist and Replace — KennyOMG (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and promote Panorama seperately: The images are used very differently, the amount of detail in the current FP is quite a LOT higher - the panorama is only 2200 pixels tall, and the section of the panorama equivalent to the current FP is not the whole height of the panorama. I'd estimate the equivalent to the current FP is maybe 800x500 pixels in the panorama; the oureent FP is 4285x2857 pixels - so a lot of information has been lost in that downsample. there's at least 8 times the pixels in the current FP for that section. That said, an overview is extremely helpful, but it's not a valid replacement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't think the article has enough detail or coverage to support both as FP. Both images are used the same way: to depict an abandoned ruined city (albeit different resolutions). There is nothing specific in the article except the mosque, which is missing in both images. Bammesk (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the wide panorama over the very limited normal photo, but regretfully, Oppose unless re-stitched - there is a clear dip in the horizon in the middle section of the panorama. --Janke | Talk 08:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Janke. I wonder if any of the horizon dip is real, sometimes plains that sit next to mountains have a very discernible slope and doing a 360 would show that. I am not sure that's the case though. Bammesk (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment there are two vertical black lines just below the horizon about 1/3 and 2/3 through the panorama. They look like some kind of error? Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dip in the horizon that is in fact even more pronounced. Unfortunately Autopano straightens it to almost level while Photoshop just can't handle it at all. Bammesk is right about it. As for the black lines good catch, seems to be a blending error. In any case I'm happy to release the source RAW images to public domanin should anyone want to take a crack at it (it's a really annoying one). KennyOMG (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the mosque is missing because it was shot from one of the minarets, if that wasn't obvious. ;) KennyOMG (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and promote Panorama seperately Per Adam Cuerden – Jobas (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]