Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/The main altar of St. Georg, Mundelfingen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 05:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceiling painting of the ascension would also be a good addition to the gallery --GRDN711 (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:St. Georg - Mundelfingen - Chancel.jpg doesn't seem quite an FP to me, as I find it a little unsharp and a little grainy. The rest are FPs. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm not so sure how much I like the light in that photo, either, but I don't think you can do anything about that. If you could get more definition and keep it looking natural, perhaps I could support. At this point, I'd be inclined to oppose the set, as I should support every photo in it for FP in order to support the set nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I definitely see Ikan's point, I thought the same when I looked at it first-off. It seems to me that the focus might have been slightly missed on the chancel and that the sharpness has been increased to compensate. It looks better when downsized to around 6.5 mpx, but it's definitely the weakest of the set. I wasn't sure whether I'd support after only having looked at that one, but decided after viewing the others that overall the set together makes it to FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, FPs of artwork require an outstanding artistic quality. For me, neither the paintings nor the statues reach this quality. Thus, I would support the first image only. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for the reasons stated above --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Uoaei1, I wouldn't support all these pictures separetaly, although in this case the set rule is given Poc o² 20:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photos provide an excellent documentation of the church but I don't find them interesting from photographical point of view. I'd like to see something more special for FP star on Commons. Sorry Lez! --Podzemnik (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1--Booth sift 22:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 -- Karelj (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu