Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torma kirik3.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Torma kirik3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 22:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Torma church
  •  Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Arcalino (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition with a lot of unimportant space does not convince me, sorry. Even if you choose a tighter crop I am not sure if the motive, light and quality would justify FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per above. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For me, the composition is just right. It puts the church and its surroundings into a context. Any closer and people would have complained about the distracting trees and branches in the shot ;-) Also, the green, blue and red add to the somewhat clean mood of the scene. A smaller aperture would have added more depth of field; however, in this case it's ok, as the background (the smaller trees on the left hand) doesn't matter when it comes to the subject of the image. Great shot, Iifar! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Comment I have nominated some church photos but it seems that they are viewed as a bit too ordinary. So this image really standed out for me for the reason Frank very nicely embodied to words in last comment. This is not just an image of a church but with a church and its surroundings. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your's and Frank's argument. My comment with "unimportant space" was possibly a bit harsh. I as reviewer can not assess the importance of the church's surrordings. Is it somehow special or seldom? In the description one can only read "Torma church". My general problem with your church nominations is: Churches are too numerous (in Germany nearly every small village has one or two) and too similiar that every well composed photo with good quality can become FP. There must be some additional outstanding value like "light, composition, level of detail, color, sky formation, special very seldom architecture ..." In this photo I see none of these. Nonetheless a nice photo with interesting colors as Frank has pointed out. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Estonia each church is unique anyway (but at a same time we only have ca 300-400 of them built over 8 centuries). I have to agree with you on this that the number of churches is so big, that there needs to something special. Maybe even some current and bit similar FB-s about architecture should be compared and poorest of them delisted. For me, how this church fits to the surroundings is special enough and I haven't seen any current FB to be similar to this. But off-course this does not mean that others have to agree with me and it was just this "unimportant space" that disturbed me and why I wanted to make a comment on this. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for sharing your thought about Estonian churches - I had not known it before. Probably I am bit biased because small churches in villages are inflationary in Germany. I am unsure if it is a good idea to start a comprehensive delisting of architectural FPs. Probably you can start a discussion about it. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice to see some surroundings and not just the church. - Averater (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Tuxyso.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of 07:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]