Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpg

File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 03:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpg

1407

2652

311

327

7360

4912

dust spot

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support wonderful lighting and sky --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition and lighting. Charles (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Serene HalfGig talk 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry --
• Mild  Oppose. I'm going to give you what I hope comes across as a high-level criticism, because the thing is, as others have said, this is indeed a beautiful picture, and the light is beautiful. However, the fields and sky are pretty inert (sure, the sky gradually gets darker going up, but that's not enough for a great composition in this case, in my opinion), so I think this photo lacks something that could make it better than merely quite good, but truly outstanding. It looks like I'm far outnumbered on this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Your helpful in-depth reviews are highly appreciated as usual, even if they end up in a mild oppose like in this case. I will think about all items you wrote at the next opportunity when I will be out there taking open-air photos. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Same feeling as Ikan Kekek. Furthermore I find the light a bit harsh. All is nice, good, clear, very well composed, but I miss "something". Empty sky ? Enpty grass ? I don't know, this is just subjective and I'm sorry for that. And I've found one dust spot (at least), please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

*  Comment De gustibus non disputandum. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Dustspot was removed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Support But tight blue sky is a little bit for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you, Agnes. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Support A truly timeless building . Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support PumpkinSky talk 01:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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