Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPG

File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 20:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info 17th century pipe organ in the church of the Monastery of Santa María de Huerta. The monastery is located in the village of Santa María de Huerta, province of Soria, Castille and León, Spain. The first stone of the monastery was laid by the king Alfonso VII of Castile in 1179 and the building was expanded in the 16th century thanks to the help of the kings Charles I and Philip II. The church was founded by Alfonso VIII of Castile in the 12th century but undergoed some changes in the 18th century. All by me, Poco² 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Technically, it’s very good. As for composition, I’d be still happier with a slightly angular view from the right, because of the non-symmetric surrounding making this composition too heavy on the left-hand side. --Kreuzschnabel 03:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is an organ of more than five centuries, clearly is in the process of deterioration and IMHO what you call asymmetry is a visual effect created by the railing on the left side. --The Photographer (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose per the asymmetry noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree - composition is out. --Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Difficult shot but asymmetric. KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
•  Oppose Agree with Kreuz. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment can sonebody explain me what is rhe opposing reason? Is it the elements on the left that are no existing on the rifht? I cannot help there then Poco² 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support As Poco a Poco says, we can't put anything on the right side Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  CommentThat’s why I suggested to take a pic from a more angular view. While we cannot build another railing to symmetrize the scenery, we still can choose our point of view for a balanced composition. --Kreuzschnabel 07:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - The composition looks OK to me. You folks so often object to centered compositions that are symmetrical. I really don't understand what your objection to this composition is. And angled composition sounds to me like the photo by A.Savin that got so much opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure if I am included in "you folks" but I’ll still try to answer that. As for me, there is no general bias for or against symmetrical compositions. It depends on what’s in the pic. A heavy, immobile structure as this is well served by a symmetric composition, while a fast moving object or creature isn’t. Imagine the camera moved 1 or 2 metres to the right here. Would make the composition perfect in my eyes, but might ruin it entirely in yours. Matter of taste, and personal reception of images. – Which Savin shot do you refer to? The "Palace of Winds"? I opposed that for busy foreground, not for angled view. Generally, please trust in anyone here to consider their votings as carefully as you do yours. Sometimes, we just cannot explain why the one image works while the other doesn’t. So, "does not wow me" is a plausible reason in here to oppose while it’s hard to put in words why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm reacting to the specific words used. "No wow" is not subject to question, no. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco² 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)