Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Pauluskirche1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Basel - Pauluskirche1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 21:23:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)- Support Looks good in scope --Katarighe (Talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support Some artefacts in the sky, by 100%. But the total impression is undisturbed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will erase the artefacts soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great Tomer T (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutral -- An adequate building. Crop could be improved though.
Comment -- Can you go to the same place again, but create a panorama of it? TrebleSeven (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- What shall the panorama show? This picture is already a panorama, otherwise it would be not possible to show a 71 MP image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The light is nice and the overal quality is very good, but I don't see what is featurable here. Even if notable church in Switzerland, I don't think this building is particularly remarkable, and it is not very beautiful nor "magic" for my taste, among other pictures of same religious buildings. The picture is technically almost flawless, but the subject is not exciting enough (IMHO). Could be a very good QI nevertheless, if the tilt cw (and the sky artefacts of course) were corrected.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can not find it: where in the FPC regulation stands that the object has to be notable? This church is very a very distinguished example of historism style. But for sure a fishing boat in the greek outback is much more notable than a church. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please learn to read. And please stop this kind of soft terror every time somebody dares to oppose one of your picture. I'm not scarred by you. I've no problem about the notability of the church, I just say I find it very ugly ! And you just opposed to the greek boat only because you are not happy of my current opinion--Jebulon (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I give a measly long argument but this argument is not your contra-argument? Come one. And I opposed the boat because I already criticize that you campaigned an unsharp picture. Don't get me on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please learn to read. And please stop this kind of soft terror every time somebody dares to oppose one of your picture. I'm not scarred by you. I've no problem about the notability of the church, I just say I find it very ugly ! And you just opposed to the greek boat only because you are not happy of my current opinion--Jebulon (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can not find it: where in the FPC regulation stands that the object has to be notable? This church is very a very distinguished example of historism style. But for sure a fishing boat in the greek outback is much more notable than a church. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As Jebulon. High resolution and good quality (despite the unsharp angel) but little excitment. Big and correct is not necessarily beautiful and featurable.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose Imo a good church photo has to be taken from a certain angle, or, from the exact middle. The 'almost symmetry' of this picture is what bothers me and makes it not featurable for me, despite its correctness. I think it is a beautiful church despite previous comments. But I just don't like the angle. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
