Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena.jpg

File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 03:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena.jpg

23

11

4423

3254

5500

3667

Suggested crop

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
•  Info: tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena, Catania; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment I like these kind of photographs. But: Please have a closer look to CAs. --XRay 💬 05:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Done: red CAs corrected. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you. --XRay 💬 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Terrible image, no reason for FP nomination at all. -- Karelj (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Karelj: Well IMHO, someone who uploads something like this, is not really in the position to call photos by fellow users terrible; especially not if they actually aren't. Regards --A.Savin 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  My image is like it is, but the basic difference is, that I do not suggest it for FP. Here is the base of problem. -- Karelj (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• But you don't have to be so insulting. You can just state what you think is wanting in it or not to your taste, and leave it at that. And Urban Versis, I believe that "no wow factor" is not a basis for a "strong oppose", which should be reserved for photos that utterly suck. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Karelj: This has nothing to do with suggesting on FPC or not; this only means that you probably do not know the difference between plain "no wow" and "terrible"; which lets me strongly doubt about your competence to assess pictures on Commons or elsewhere. But no surprise, the poor quality of your reviews has been known since long time. Regards --A.Savin 11:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: Well, I believe, that the level of my reviews is minimum on the same level as yours... -- Karelj (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Colin compiled some stats recently which cover accuracy of nominations (though not reviews). Seems somewhat relevant here. User:Colin/FPC. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "terrible image" is not appropriate here. COM:MELLOW reminds us all that not everyone expresses themselves in the way that others might best understand and that applies both for those upset about this comment as well as Karelj, who should absorb the opinion that their choice of words wasn't optimal. -- Colin (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I agree, and I am sorry for my quick judgement, especially after reading Karelj's vote. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose  Oppose (see above comments) per Karelj, now wow factor. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Karelj. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support To me this image is not only well done, but to me it also is beautiful in its simplicity while showing us a lot about European culture, and the history of architecture. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow, especially in such a fascinating category. -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't see any reason for FP, but very rude to say "Terrible image" Karelj. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice idea and certainly a well-taken photograph, but it doesn't strike my fancy as a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a bad pic as such of course, but somehow out of frame here. As for categorization, being a closeup shot of a tiled roof of a religious building doesn’t make it a picture of a religious building – this could be any roof. As for composition, I don’t quite like the dominating vertical streak of shadow along the right edge, looking a bit grim to me. No problems on QI for sure, maybe VI with a fitting scope, but I don’t think it’s overall one of the very best we have. --Kreuzschnabel 06:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Regarding categorization: IMHO this photo fits much better into our Architectural elements gallery page, for now just in the Other section. Changing the gallery link to that gallery page also emphasizes the strenghs of this photo: It is not a representative photo of the San Nicolò l’Arena church, indeed, but it is a very nice minimalist photograph of an old roof with old hand-made roof tiles, each one of them a little bit different. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

   Done: recategorized The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Support per Kritzolina & Aristeas. It starts out as a wonderfully minimalist photo at first sight until you start to move your eyes around a bit. Then all those slightly different forms, color variations from green to orange and then the different kinds of lichen on top ... Agree that this should be filed under Architectural elements, of course. --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose It does not work for me. I find the angle strange. Dinkum (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Not only do I find it striking visually, it is an excellent illustration of this type of roof that should be lead image for the roof-tile article in every wiki. I would, however, suggest cropping at the bottom and the right to mitigate that distracting shadow (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes, it might be a good VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Harsh light. Nothing special in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI for me -- Wolf im Wald 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not even a QI nor a VI for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)