Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ChandBaori.jpg

File:ChandBaori.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 08:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chand Baori is a famous stepwell situated in the village of Abhaneri near Jaipur in the Indian state of Rajasthan.

This step well is located opposite Harshat Mata Temple is one of the deepest and largest step wells in India. It was built in the 9th century and has 3500 narrow steps in 13 stories and is 100 feet deep. Created and uploaded by Doron - nominated by me -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is a bit low, but has wow. Tomer T (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I noticed it but amazed by the architecture. My intention is to showcase here, at least. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality not quite FP standard. See Category:Chand Baori for other, perhaps better, examples. Colin (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't see better examples (showing 10 stories above the water) although found some more resolution ones. This may be reason why this file is used in so many wikis whereas no one else is ever used. :( -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently uploaded (for WLM 2012) images File:Chand Baori (step-well).JPG and File:Chand Baori (Step-well) at Abhaneri.JPG show 12 levels above the water and are taken from two opposite sides. The latter is a better picture and higher EV than this IMO. That it was only uploaded two weeks ago is probably the main reason it isn't widely used yet. The above nomination appears to be a scan of a photograph and the left-hand-side has serious light-bleed issues, as well as the picture having low overall sharpness/detail for its (barely) 2MP. Colin (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; they are. I din't see them earlier. Thanks. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Commons just the worst UI for browsing pictures? Tiny thumbnails and very hard to sort or judge without opening them all. Colin (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I started to rearrange pictures in gallery like this so that people can easily find the best files. Is it good? -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing helps. A gallery still doesn't list image dimensions and on the category list all you have to go on is the file size. Different users will have different needs. For web use, the tiny images might be fine. For others, they are just noise. Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support both versions. I see nothing significantly wrong with either of them. Pine^✉ 07:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow effect with all these steps.. --Llorenzi (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support .. effect with all these steps Ueb-at (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Ueb-at[reply]

Alt edit

Info Created and uploaded by Chetan - nominated by me -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it could be regarded as an alt. I can't find where in the rules it's written, but I remember that an alt version should have only slight changes comparing to original version, or it should be an edit of the original. Tomer T (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too can't find such rules. For me edit=edit, alt=alternate. :) No problem to withdraw and make a new nomination but these are not my works; so less interests. :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Tomer T--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions. I see nothing significantly wrong with either of them. Pine^✉ 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing place - Benh (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]