Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpg

File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 13:44:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Halavar (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Maire (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Moderate  Support - Very picturesque, pleasant light (though a bit hazy in the distance), nice composition, and while there are areas that aren't fully sharp (e.g., some of the flowers from the center to the right [motion blur from wind?]; the background across the body of water, which is completely understandable and arguably good; and regrettably, the cross on top of the church), I don't think they are disqualifying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan Kekek. — Rftblr (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support very well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disorderly composition because it is not possible to know the main subject of the composition and several weight objects are observed which makes it difficult to focus on one. In addition, the bushes are disturbing and prevent complete visualization of the church. --The Photographer (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I think all the oppose of The Photographer --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I actually rather like the composition, as the gravestones form a nice perspective line pointing the subject, taking good advantage of it being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Even after concidering the opposing arguments I still support. I might be a different kind of thinker as I don't find the composition confusing. I don't think the main subject has to be either the building alone or the stones but they can both interact together in the same picture. The subject is then broader, which is the place itself. --Ximonic (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings