Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Frauenkirche Dresden Detail.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Frauenkirche Dresden Detail.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2009 at 20:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Can you add some more description, i.e. which face of the dome, geocode, date of exposure? -- H005 
21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- O.K. - see description Je-str (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I foresee many complaints about the crop, but I like tight crops from an unusual perspective. -- H005 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- But does this unusual perspective do justice to the Frauenkirche? Or you care just about your picture and not about the subject? --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not meant to depict the entire Frauenkirche, is it? It shows details of the work, which is helpful in this particular case where old structures have been rebuilt using modern methods. And btw it's not my picture. -- H005 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not meant to depict the entire Frauenkirche, is it? It shows details of the work, which is helpful in this particular case where old structures have been rebuilt using modern methods. And btw it's not my picture. -- H005
- But does this unusual perspective do justice to the Frauenkirche? Or you care just about your picture and not about the subject? --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition, quality is also nice. I don´t think images of buildings do always have to show the whole construction, architectural details are also fine with me Nikopol (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support great composition --George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Congratulations for the courage to shoot such an unusual perspective. In terms of sharpness and exposure this is also a good image. However the documentary value is low. Why? We do not see a full capital, it's cropped on the right. The cornice is interrupted on the left bottom. And we do not see an interesting part of the roof construction. The image could be much better when it would focus on one or two architectural elements. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)- Info The main thing of the picture is not the capital and is also not an interesting part of the roof. The main thing is the cornice (see description). In the interruption of the cornice is nothing else to see what is not already shown. Je-str (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose artsy, because of what it lost any encyclopedic value. I think we shouldn't promote deliberate removal of informational values --Leafnode✉ 13:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
