Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Church Telde

Church Telde

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 15:05:34 (UTC)

Original - Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Telde

Edit - Perspective distortion mitigated.

Reason: why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)
Articles in which this image appears: Telde
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Felix König

Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 15:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good perspective, good EV, worthy to be a FP.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I know that there will be plenty of people who like a close crop but I don't particularly see the crop as appealing. My opinion is that if you're going to show some sky (and I support that so you don't crop too close) then you shouldn't crop so close on the sides or it makes the whole image see out of proportion. I'm still weakly in support of this because it's otherwise a good shot and well done and of high encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just think that the church was cropped far too closely. I feel like more of the background on both the left and right sides should be included. Razum2010 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually like the tightness of the crop. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some perspective distortion or something. One of the towers is higher than the other, for example. I tried making an edited version to fix this but I am not pleased with the Edit either. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture wasn't taken from a place completely in front of the church because there was a monument; because of that I couldn't take the picture from the place I wanted. -- Felix König ✉ 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the edit --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ oppose. It doesn't blow me away in terms of being fantastic photography, and the fact the church itself doesn't have its own article... J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Felix, sorry, I just wanted to add that I hope this doesn't discourage you. It's a good picture, and I suspect you will be capable of producing featured quality pictures, it's just that the bar here is high. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Essentially per Milburn; the EV just isn't there and the quality is unremarkable. Cowtowner (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+5.5 -3 Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]