Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Borgund Stave Chuch in Lærdalen, 2013 June.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 13:45:28 (UTC)

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - It's very nice, but there's something that strikes me as... off. As if the church is leaning every which way. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article says the original structure dates from the early 13th century, so maybe in 750 years some wood warped & parts began to lean this way & that? (Built with wooden 'nails' too!) Sca (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't the featured picture be the lead in an article? Why feature an image that's randomly placed in the text? Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no requirement for an image to be in the lead, but I agree that this one is better and have switched their places. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we get confirmation somehow that this image is 100% correct? I agree withChris Woodrich that something seems off perspective wise. For me, the centre part (below the final spire) seems to be suffering an almost "fish-eye" effect, and certainly seems to be leaning heavily to the left of the building (from our viewpoint), whereas the rest of the building (base and spire) seems to be fairly verticle. If this is how it is then I'll happily Support as the detail is excellent... gazhiley 09:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit it does look a bit cockeyed, but it's very old for wood. Maybe we could ask that honorary Norwegian Hafspajen for an opinion? Sca (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember the building is straight. Not leaning at all. [Check here]. Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from other pics on Commons, the building does appear to have some lean to it, at least near top cupola, but there are so many planes and angles, from different vantage points, it's difficult to judge. Sca (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pix on Flickr generally seem to show less leaning, so I guess there may be some grounds for questioning this nom. Sca (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to summise from this conversation then that there is some perspective issues and problems? gazhiley 07:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You be the judge. (Or maybe Điliff)?? Sca (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know. I suspect that perhaps some of the perceived distortion/leaning is because of the angle of view. It was taken at 15mm (with a crop sensor camera, so equivalent to 24mm full frame). It looks like the horizon is also the centre point (roughly), so there shouldn't be any leaning induced by the perspective (which you would get if the camera was tilted up or down relative to the horizon). I can't imagine why the photographer would want to introduce a lean that wasn't in the photo to begin with and all 'known verticals' in the image like lamp posts and power lines are roughly vertical, so I'd have to conclude that the building really is leaning in a variety of directions like that, perhaps exacerbated by the angle of view, potential for barrel distortion of the wide angle lens (which has an effect similar to fisheye) and position of the camera relative to the building. It wouldn't be too surprising to me if it did have a lot of quirky leans, as it's an old wooden building. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jobas (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, good perspective, good lighting, details in both: shadows and highlights, even corner sharpness seems to be OK. SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yann (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Borgund Stave Church in Lærdalen, 2013 June.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]