Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Minimalism again. The tower and roof of a little church in Estremoz, Portugal, in a rainy day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OpposeThe compostion misses the church, which is the main subject. Tomer T (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)- The entire church very obviously is not the subject of this, just the top of the tower and roof are. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You (and the others below) convinced me. Support Tomer T (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The entire church very obviously is not the subject of this, just the top of the tower and roof are. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support More of the tower (or even the church itself) could have been captured from another angle or position of the camera, but however this is a minimalism picture and that does not make it any worse than any other picture, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support I think that the church is not the main subject of the composition, and I find this one deserving the FP label (colors, light, sky, shot, etc...).--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose low EV (the main subject is cropped), aesthetically this "minimalistic" does not convince me.. with all the clouds, texture etc I cannot say that this image is minimalistic rather that it is a formalistic image. Also several images has been rejected in FPC because of the cropping of the main subject. Also it is quite centered composition that it is not nice also aesthetically. Sorry.. Ggia (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support Yes Nice -- Raghith (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose art for arts sake relevance for Gods sake ... GerardM (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC) This picture tells no story, it does not illustrate anything.
- Support per Jebulon. W.S. 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't see the educational value in this case. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 苦情処理係 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose wow... composition (no wow; what's the subject? a lot of an unsharp roof, a little bit of a church tower; mural at the bottom right), quality (main motive is blurry and has lots of artifacts), EV (is there any EV at all?), file page (very little description with no information about what we can see; no geocode; no EXIF data; poor categorization). Very far away from FP standards... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose missing the main object. roofs i have seen enough. alofok* 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose lacking sharpness, lacking dof, lacking bokeh, uninspring composition, no ev, misleadingly deleted metadata, deficient metadata - you did better, get back to your roots. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -- Just a minor remark to your review: the concept of bokeh does not apply here. Anyway we need more of these exhaustive, accurate and objective criticisms, focused on the flaws of the image rather than on the merits of the creator. Please carry on with the good work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - little educational value. --Спас Колев (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)