Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helsinki's Cathedral.jpg

File:Helsinki's Cathedral.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 22:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Helsinki's Cathedral.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helsinki's Cathedral.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created and uploaded by Julie tsarfati - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The people and the steps are not very clear. --BoothSift 23:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Also random-seeming crops left and right. That said, this motif could be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Insufficient quality. @ArionEstar: this is your 16th nomination that is straight rejected in FPC in one month. All of them failed by consensus with very clear oppose and no one passed since the beginning of March. The best score you got from these nominations was 3 supports only for 6 oppose, which still makes one of the weakest results here. A few ones were {{FPX}}. Now looking at the kind of pictures you propose to the reviewers, almost all of them are taken with smartphones (iPhone X, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XR, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XR, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone8,1, and now iPhone 6s). Several reviewers have already suggested that these cameras don't provide enough details, but you seem not to listen, by continuing to nominate only weak images. Most of us are active here because we like beautiful photography. This is never a pleasure to look at a bad candidate and to have to write a negative statement. The average rate of success in FPC is usually about 50%, not zero. We are very tolerant with failures in general, and many reasons can explain the non-promotion of a picture. But I think here it is really too obvious that you don't provide the necessary effort to scrupulously choose your nominations, and to change your strategy to evolve towards success. I think you should now refrain from nominating new candidates, unless you select them better with reliable reasons to believe they will pass. If you're not sure, Commons:Photography critiques is a section that may help you that way. Pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose please stop nominating these images of weak technical quality. – Lucas 06:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a bad motif but the quality is not good enough for QI, let alone FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree it is not FP level because our bar for architecture is high and the VSCO hb2 filter applied to the photo hasn't helped. But this image did win a European Special Award in WLM2018 and did pass QI. Personally, I think it is a good enough image to be widely usable (which is what I think QI should aim for). While the framing could be a bit tidier at the sides, the scene is impressive and the girl in white on the steps catches the eye. QI should appreciate more than just the pixels. All these iPhone photos....perhaps Arion works for Apple? :-). -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wiki Loves Monuments finalists are clearly not all quality images. After 6 or 8 failed nominations of iPhone pictures here, I think it's time to understand that the quality is not at FP level. Especially after such unambiguous scores. Now that's the 16th... See those stairs : posterized, artifacts, unsharp, poor colors, and the low resolution is not here to counterbalance these flaws. Please find another pool of champions -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh I agree about WLM. I'm just saying that this image has some credentials, so probably wasn't the one to make your point on. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Colin: VSCO hb2? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• GerifalteDelSabana if you look at the metadata table on the file description page, the title says "Processed with VSCO with hb2 preset". VSCO is a collection of filters. The people on the steps have that high contrast look you get with too much Lightroom Clarity, but more so with lots of crushed blacks. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose I agree with Colin that it probably is QI, and it's a useful contribution to the project. But it's not FP level, and I share the view that iPhone photos will generally struggle to make FP. Also we already have this FP of the cathedral which is considerably superior. Cmao20 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Feels kind-of posterized (looks like the result from turning down the "Clarity" in Lightroom). Also, regarding phone photography, we should probably make a challenge to see who could get a featured image with one haha. They almost never deliver quality images and are usually horrendously posterized. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Long way away from FP in technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 11:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)