Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpit of St. Jakobi in Stralsund, detail 09.jpg

File:Pulpit of St. Jakobi in Stralsund, detail 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2022 at 06:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpit of St. Jakobi in Stralsund, detail 09.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulpit of St. Jakobi in Stralsund, detail 09.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
•  Info all by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Excellent quality, but very disturbing background, unfortunately --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment There's some pink/purple CA near the top that needs to be removed. The composition really works for me at full page, though the more I blow the photo up, starting at 30% of full size, the more the blurry corner becomes distracting. I don't know how to think about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per George. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support The lighting makes the sculpture appear very expressive. It would be good to remove the CAs, but they are quite minor. --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose A decent quality image, but not more, in my view. Distracting background, harsh light, tight crop at the top. The subject is a banal sculpture -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• New upload slightly modified. Still a QI for me. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Basile Morin --Tagooty (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Basile and George. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Question Hello Kritzolina, I could gladly try my hand at this image to remove the fringing. Additionally, I would soften the background to the right of the figure a bit and tag it with a retouching template on the file page. Would that be okay for you? Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for offering your help - I trust your work in retouching and would be grateful, if you would be able to upload a version with the changes you are describing. Kritzolina (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

•  New version uploaded Dear users @Kritzolina, George Chernilevsky, Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, Aristeas, Basile Morin, Tagooty, and Sebring12Hrs: Thank you very much for your reviews. I have reduced the color fringes as well as softened the right, disturbing image area. I think it is a little better now. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Radomianin. I  Support now. The pulpit really pops out at me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed a valuable improvement – thank you very much, Radomianin! --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• It took me a while, but after editing the photo I feel some love for this motif. A different gaze that deserves a fair  support. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)