Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/São Julião Church, Setúbal

São Julião Church, Setúbal, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 08:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 
  Nave
• 
  Ceiling

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
•  Info St.Julian's Church, in Portuguese "Igreja de São Julião", located on the centric Praça de Bocage (town hall quare), Setúbal, Portugal. The church was originally built in the second half of the 13th century in medieval style and was rebuilt at the beginning of the 16th century by order of King Manuel I in Manueline style. In 1531 a strong earthquake struck Setúbal and the church was damaged; the building was considerably modified in Mannerist style and reinaugurated in 1570. The original church was almost completely destroyed by the Great Earthquake of 1755 and was greatly rebuilt and redecorated in the last third of the 18th century following the late Baroque style. From this stage date the general appearance of the façade, the inner wooden roof, the painted tiles, the main and lateral altarpieces and the main chapel. The nave of the church is divided in three aisles by arches built during the Mannerist repair works following the 1531 earthquake. The columns are decorated in talha dourada (a typical Portuguese technique to decorate woodwork with gold leaves). Today it is the main church (matriz) of the city classified as National Monument in 1910. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Support My first intention was to nominate to FP the ceiling candidate, but then I looked into the others and came to the conclusion that at the end of the day I'd also like to nominate them here, so I wonder whether it will work as a set nominating all of them at once. -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Support for the entire set. The restrained lighting of the interiors gives the scenes an unobtrusive atmosphere with a focus on the essentials. Great shots! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Radomianin, sorry for pinging you again, this time the purpose is to let you know that I reduced the set to 2 images --Poco a poco (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, Poco. It is a pity that the set was reduced. But if it meets the guidelines, so be it. I keep my support for the remaining photos. Imho, the removed images (Main altar and Detail of azulejos) should be nominated individually because they are FP worthy. Kind regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose set. The nave would get a weak support -- there's a lot of grey stone and pews and the interior has less wow than many of our other examples. The altar also weak support. This view merely adds a 2x detail to the previous one, though the camera is closer too. The ceiling I'd oppose due to lack of wow. We have plenty "wow" ceilings and this one is plain and merely competently photographed. The detail I'd also oppose as being just a QI. Also there are many such tiled images around the church and this is only one of them, which doesn't fit well with a set nomination. I think we need to be careful set noms aren't just a random collection of some aspects of a building photographed by one photographer. The point of a set is completeness, not just a quick way to get four or five FPs from one building. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose good quality images, but per Colin. Imho this collection doesn't work as a whole --Ivar (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Question For a set, the guidelines state "Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ." Thus I wonder what the "Detail of azulejos" is doing here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, Basile Morin, I took that picture along with the main alter image out of the set, --Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I still think this is just two random photos you took inside the building. Would be better to nominate the nave on its own, and be happy with QI for the rest. And again, major changes are being made to a nom and the previous support voters not being informed. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It that statement applies in this case, it also does in probably 80% of all sets nominated here Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose I was going to review this set in full but sadly the image that's by far the best - the altar - is not here anymore. I think all four photos are FP, although the altar is the only one I would really jump at nominating (I may do so), but I am not sure it's a cohesive set. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, funny, my favourite is indeed the ceiling...Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think the ceiling is probably FP but I wonder why it is your favourite. To me it seems like the least interesting of the four. It is well captured of course but fairly plain, the light is quite nice but it isn't the most architecturally interesting. I would actually rank both of the images you have taken out of the set, higher than the two you have left in. Anyway, will start the altar nomination because it should definitely be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cmao20 I'd say that I like it for these reasons: it's different; I like the paintings on it; it's a valuable old wooden ceiling (most I know are made of stone) and I enjoy the arches framing it and the paintings you can see through them. Poco a poco (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Colin ... I agree that these would work better as individual noms at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)