Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpg

File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 14:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral That trampoline is an eyesore and distracting, and to some extent the stone oven as well. Good colors and quite good quality. At full res, the sky is somewhat noisy, but not a big problem for me, just an observation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture is denoiseable and the trampoline I can retouch, but I don't think it's really distracting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets wait and hear the opinion of other reviewers... --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Neutral unsharp areas on the right clock. The left clock is crossed with the cross. otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose - I like the composition, but the trampoline detracts from the image. As Alchemist-hp said, the image could be sharper around the top church tower, especially on the clock-faces. This is a QI to me, but not a FP. --Claritas (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question What is feature-worthy here, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good quality as usual from author, but per Jebulon. Would be better without trampoline for sure (it's quite noticeable). Some small issues with source pictures (blurred part on the right clock) and maybe a minor stitch error on right edge of the tower, but fixing them won't change my mind. - Benh (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good picture. The trampoline makes the picture more interesting and alive. / Achird (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Limited wow factor - just another church. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

very limited content in your argument, not liking church is usually no reason to oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Dear Wladyslaw, this is a misinterpretation. I just pointed out, that the "wow factor" is limited IMO, because it is a relatively common motif and to me there is nothing special about this church. I didn't gave nor intended to give a statement of whether I like or dislike this church. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many churches you know that are looking like a little castle. This I find not very common. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Jebulon and Nagel. พ.s. 13:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)