Comment I think the other photo is better for the scope of just the church. The "NO ENTRY <- PARKING" signs are regrettable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In most churches, the bells are in the steeple. Here, they are mounted in a separate structure for some reason. I would consider this to be part of the church. --Tagooty (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think buildings are seen/experienced within their context, and this broader framing is better for the church overall as it captures the separate structure holding the bells (similar to detached bell towers) and local vegetation. Is also better than the tighter cropped image of the main facade which is a bit more overexposed. Both are taken in the morning, which for a west-facing facade is problematic as the light comes from the back - hence both are improvable by simply taking an afternoon shot. Which makes me ask why nominate this to VI, considering the importance of the church is not established in Wikipedia articles? More enticing I would find File:Interior Nave Roof Anthonys Church Kollam Kerala Mar22 A7C 01679.jpg as a VI of the interior - is much more rich in information and qualitative in execution. --ELEKHHT08:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elekhh: I appreciate your view re the context of a building being important. Re importance as a pre-condition: many images are promoted to VI before use in any Wiki project. VI is given if there is a likelihood of future use in some project. Note that there is a sub-article on this church in Wikipedia. Re the image of the nave: I am planning to nominate that image for VI of the interior. --Tagooty (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to that article. While the sources are a bit sketchy, I now see the importance as being within meaningful VI scope. I Support it despite the non-ideal light as that doesn't compromise the visibility of details, and the composition is outstanding - the best I can find on the web. ELEKHHT10:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
