Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porta San Tomaso in Treviso (2).jpg

File:Porta San Tomaso in Treviso (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2022 at 11:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Porta San Tomaso in Treviso (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porta San Tomaso in Treviso (2).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
•  Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral A bit dark, I suppose. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Simple and effective composition. The light seems a bit boring, but it has the advantage that all parts of the Porta San Tomaso are nicely visible, without burnt highlights or black shadows. I would consider cropping the photo a bit at the right to get rid of the fragmentary person and of the fragment of the tree trunk. --Aristeas (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I like the muted colours and the serene composition. Maybe a tiny bit low on the wow, and I agree with Aristeas that the right crop could be improved. But sometimes 'beautiful motif and high quality photo' is enough for me to think it deserves a star Cmao20 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very average composition. Intrusive branches at the upper right corner. Tight crop at the right of the bridge. There's an abandoned roof looking strange on the grass at the left. The light and sky are unexceptional in my view. Since the main façade is empty, the angle of view may not be optimum here. Overall I think this image does not stand out enough from the many bridges we have already -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with a lot of what Basile says, but mainly, I'd like to see light on the front of the gate and I'm also disappointed by the mesh over the front of the gate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas and Cmao. To me, if you think of this as an attempt to emulate in photography the qualities of a good watercolor, you will be satisfied. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Basile, neither the subject/composition, nor the sharpness nor lighting are extraordinary IMHO, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dull light. —kallerna (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)