Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinfelden-Minseln - Peter und Paul.jpg

File:Rheinfelden-Minseln - Peter und Paul.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 12:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinfelden-Minseln - Peter und Paul.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinfelden-Minseln - Peter und Paul.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose in my opinion (!) not an exceptional image of a church. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

would be nice to argue why --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose It's good, but not outstanding. --Vamps (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose very good quality, but this is ordinary view of church --Pudelek (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

would be interesting for me to learn why this view of a church is not ordinary File:Červený Kostelec (Rothkosteletz) - church of Saint James.JPG --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

in my photo was nice lighting / atmosphere -- Pudelek (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

dull weather is a nice atmosphere? matter of taste. my question was about the view and not about the weather. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Weak Oppose Little more space was required on the left side and the bottom. That would have made it more balanced. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll proof if I have enough material to expand the image a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• •  Support The new crop is better and looks good to me now. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Info Uploaded a new crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good quality and ok composition but nothing I'd consider featurable here Poco a poco (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --ST ○ 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten. I'm not quite convinced by this short distance capture and its steep angle. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor, but overall still a great image. Michael Barera (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Opposeper Carschten. Alborzagros (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
•  weak oppose For me FP = very good quality + very good composition + very intersting motive (something special) + Wow. The weighting depends on the reviewer and of course on the motive. With this photo I would say: Quality is good (but not outstanding, see e.g. noise in the sky, some very bright areas), composition is good to very good (slightly too tight at the right), motive is medium interesting (a church with surrording churchyard, the same as in thousand other German villages), little wow (no interestring light or mood, not comparable to File:Červený Kostelec (Rothkosteletz) - church of Saint James.JPG (look at the beautiful and selective light, colors and atmospheric sky)) All in all, QI but no FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)