Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpg

File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 16:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpg

4802

159

331

423

5292

5119

Dust spot in this zone

•  Info OK, here it is a replacement for the nomination withdrawn below. The tower of the University of Coimbra (here), an iconic image of the city, was rebuild in the eighteen century and restored recently. At left, the manueline door of the Chapel of Saint Michael, built in the begining of the sixteenth century. Alvesgaspar (talk)
•  Abstain as author -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good work, large and sharp, nice composition, excellent light, high historical and educational value: all ok. Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I may be biased. I stayed in Coimbra for three days 15 years ago, and I liked the atmospere in the town very much, especially this area at the university. I am happy to see it again, now I just need to hear some fado. Good image quality and composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I used to sing and play, on the Portuguese guitar ([1]), the fado from Coimbra. But not any more, I'm afraid... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - much better crop/composition than the version posted before. High educational value. --Claritas (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Michael Gäbler and Claritas. Achird (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Much better now, indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose (weak) This picture has nice quality (though issue mentioned after), but I'm still missing wow here. Sorry. A few other minor issues to me: 1. you might want to check the white balance. It's not on par with the two previous nom. 2. pano size is 5312 × 5055 pixels but viewing at full size reveals pixelisation. Either the image size is incorrect, or it was upsampled, or my softs are wrong. - Benh (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info -- Sorry about the pixelation, that was an artifact generated by my lousy image application when rotating/distorting (Corel PhotoPaint). I re-started everything and a brand new version was uploaded. The white balance was checked and a very slight correction, maybe not perceptible, was made towards a lower temperature (more red). We can't compare this picture with the other one though because the light was not exactly the same. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO good image quality, no "Wow factor", high educational value. Why don't you nominate this as valued image? --Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow, some part of building in shadow. Just a QI. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose A very big part is in shadows, WB seems too blue. But mainly because of lighting. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good choice, we don't normally see a picture like this one...Edu7 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Chernilevsky. And... I don't like the crop at top (I know the square and I can't say nothing at left and at right). Dust spot (see approximate note)--Miguel Bugallo 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)