Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg

Rotational symmetry in Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque ceiling in Isfahan, Iran[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 15:15:09 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality, FP in commons and Persian, Turkish language Wikipedia, Full of EV and +POTY label.
Articles in which this image appears: Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque, ceiling, symmetry, ~~Rotational symmetry~~
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Nikopol

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't we do this in April. It got plenty reviewers. Has anything changed? -- Colin°^Talk 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually discussed in detail in the first article now, so the objection is overcome. However, it isn't actually in the article rotational symmetry anymore, and that should be removed from the list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per myself in April. The article is over illustrated, but this one should definitely stay where it is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per my earlier oppose it looks nice but has limited encyclopaedic value. As an architectural feature it could be anything: a mosque, a palace, someone's house. Mathematically it looks like it has 32-fold rotational symmetry but look closely and the pattern in the main central region appears 16 times, but alternately mirrored so the rotational symmetry is 8-fold, confirmed by the eight-pointed star in the very centre. This can't be seen in the thumbnail as the middle looks like noise. So it has very limited value as an example of symmetry.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is now discussed in the mosque article, so it may have EV there now. I agree about it having much less EV in symmetry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose as in April, (composition/framing). --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No EV, per last nomination. Dusty777 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is a great picture concerning architecture and tile work. That is undigestible for me which some say No EV.Alborzagros (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now has enough EV. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those of you who are Supporting, and not seeing the reason behind the "No EV" Oppose, did you happen to notice there is 18 other pictures in Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque (including one featured picture)? The article isn't even long enough to support 5-10 pictures, much less 19 with 2 featured pictures IMO. While the picture appears in symmetry and ceiling, the EV from those two is fairly minimal, and not enough to warrant a support. Dusty777 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure I mentioned that, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you did, but I didn't see any reason for not mentioning it. =D Dusty777 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on EV grounds per Dusty777. — raeky t 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Nice for Commons, but I'm still not feeling the EV. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just being an article doesn't give it EV, the image itself doesn't have enough EV because it just shows a design and no context. Cat-five t c ---- 11:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]