Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parliament of the Central Tibetan Administration 02.jpg

File:Parliament of the Central Tibetan Administration 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 May 2025 at 14:13:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#India
Info Parliament of the Tibetan government-in-exile (Central Tibetan Administration) in Dharamsala, India. Created and uploaded by Bernard Gagnon – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The symmetry is very pleasing, with leading lines to the central arrangement and the portrait wall with the map of Tibet, Dalai Lama and Potala Palace. There is also high educational value and the quality is also good. – UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, regretful Oppose: the symmetry is pleasing, but the lens distortion is noticeable and, more concerningly, the paintings and photograph in this picture likely constitute derivative works that do not fall under de minimis. More Info on the copyright status is requested from Bernard. JayCubby (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Potala image is from here which is also on the UNESCO WHS website and the Dalai Lama image is an edited version of a 2003 portrait by this photographer. I could not find anything on the map. The Tibetan parliament themselves produce plenty of images on the interiors (e.g. [1]) including even a full virtual tour. Though I am unsure this image can be (or to what extent) called derivative(s) of any of those works. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop them from either having a license agreement or straight-up violating copyright. Thanks for searching.

It's a DW because of how the photos and map are this image's focus, and reproduced fairly clearly. JayCubby (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call them the focus of the image, but a secondary element. The 'clearly' part is also questionable esp. for the portrait. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice image and interesting space, but image quality is a bit marginal for FP in my opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technicallt well made image - IMO definitely QI and VI, but insufficient wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]