Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 14:25:04 (UTC)

Reason

Meets criteria

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

NVO

• Support as nominator --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Article is low view but has had a lot of love and development by GOP (kudos). Church is special in that there are only two Catholic cathedrals in Russia (not just another church). This is the most helpful illustration in the article (which has several helpful ones) and I like the angle and framing. Size, just creeps over our threshold, but image is from 2007 and looks OK to my eye. Definitely illustrates the article well.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose (sorry). Small image of a big object; overexposed sky, some annoying compositional elements (such as the half-car). Clearly a very useful illustration, but not really up to standards for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If I revert to this version and ask someone another to do the clean up, will you then support? ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, it's still too small. I oppose the alt for the same reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn. upstateNYer 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong oppose. Poor quality even for 2007. Moreover, excessive cloning has been used to remove cars and floodlights. Compare the current version to the real original. O.J. (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note I reverted to the Schwallex version. I asked User:Fallschirmjäger to retouch the picture. Please don't vote until it is done. Thanks.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about we ignore the criteria and I instead nominate this picture as alternative?♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, add it as an Alt if you really want to. --jjron (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid a retouching doesn't help the resolution. You need more pixels, plain and simple. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I'm afraid I have to agree... Nikthestoned 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Alt. Doesn't meet the size criteria and is therefore again a small-image-of-a-large-object. I'd like to be able to see a whole lot more detail than this offers. Nikthestoned 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I particularly liked the composition and night shot, but the resolution is way too small. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Alt Yes, too small. Also, how can these two buildings be the same? Colors are totally different. upstateNYer 21:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One's taken during the day, one's done at night under artificial lighting. :) --jjron (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Withdraw I withdraw it. Thanks for everyone who commented. I don't understand your oppose votes concerning the file size; as our featured picture criteria explains, the picture should be minimum 1000 pixel large in either width or height. But you say it is a large object, but the picture small, thus it fails the criteria. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As you indicate, the 1000px is a minimum criteria. Most images are expected to be considerably bigger, especially for big things like this or landscapes that inherently contain a lot of detail. And the Alt was considerably below even the minimum. --jjron (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted - withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]