Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpg

File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 20:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpg

•  Info Mergelstetten Protestant Church. c/u/n by -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautifully shot and I like the somber mood offered by the light. There is an issue with the symmetry that is noticeable even in the thumb. It is complex because a simple rotation to correct the horizontal will take the verticals off perpendicular. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Got your point, the horizontals are climbing very slightly towards the left. Tried to straighten that out, new version uploaded. However, I am not sure whether the structure itself is perfectly straight, so, though it might look nicer, it may not be "better" from an encyclopedical point of view. Now the backrests of the benches are descending towards the left. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you made the right choice in correcting for the horizontal. A bit in the vertical is not jarring to the eye (some prefer it that way). Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • IMO the removed lamps could be the more severe problem for encyclopedical point of view than the "corrected" horizontal lines ... --P e z i (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Those lamps protruded down the top framing by far less than 1/10 of the entire image height. Maybe 1/20. Just enough for cropping them out would frame the arch too tight, so I decided to remove those disturbing lower rims of them. If the lamps had been installed 0.5 m higher, this wouldn’t have been necessary. So I think the encyclopedical damage done by this information loss is really marginal. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Deserves to become a featured picture. --DAJF (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Rutake (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors