Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpg

File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 15:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral jpg artifacts --The Photographer 18:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Seriously, this is not the picture to care about such things. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Kenny, --cart-Talk 06:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral The trees in the bottom and poor quality ruin it for me. Big wow otherwise though -- Thennicke (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others. The light beaming onto the monastery and environs does it for me. Not good for pixel-peeping, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Such a shame about the technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is an incredible scenery however I wouldn't let it pass QIC because of noise and low detail so I can't see why it should be a FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Basotxerri, while the quality here is certainly borderline, QIC is not a requirement for FP and has its own standards which permit "incredible scenery" to compensate for technical shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support The graininess makes it look more painterly to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Suffering from processing and low JPG quality. But the image is good and not too bad at 6 megapixels. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Very interesting scene. Amazing. But... The quality is strangely low. -- Pofka (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful place, lovely rays of light, but the glow softens the detail. Atsme 📞 02:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Quite an epic scenery. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings