Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 04.jpg

File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2019 at 08:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 04.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 04.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Phimeanakas ('celestial temple'), Angkor Thom, Cambodia. It's a Hindu temple in the Khleang style, built at the end of the 10th century, during the reign of Rajendravarman (from 941-968), then completed by en:Suryavarman ISuryavarman I in the shape of a three tier pyramid as a Hindu temple. All by me, Poco² 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. A beautiful scene, good composition and clouds. My only objection is that the specular highlights are a bit harsh, especially on the building and the trees on the left, i.e. lighting could have been better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The background (trees) colors and sharpness is practically same as these of temple - it is difficult to distinguish them. -- Karelj (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose, kind of per Karelj: I don't find that the remains of the pyramid stand out in sharp relief, and the overall composition is not wowing me, although elements of a good composition are certainly there. I wonder what the pyramid would have looked like from the other side, light allowing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose On top of what others wrote above, processing went a bit too far for me in the latest version (especially the sky). I think version #2 looks much less artificial. --El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)