Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel sv. Františka, Quito.jpg

File:Kostel sv. Františka, Quito.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 21:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel sv. Františka, Quito.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel sv. Františka, Quito.jpg

•  Info created by Ondřej Žváček - uploaded by Ondřej Žváček - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong support -- David C. S. 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe a little bit too dark at parts, but that golden roof just prohibits me from opposing. Really nicely captured. -- Pofka (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pofka, please bear in mind that we are not judging places but images here. Photographic effort and performance. While this place is certainly fascinating without doubt, do you really believe this image of it to be lined up with the very finest images on Commons? It’s noisy, tilted, showing hardly any detail, and the ceiling is blown in many parts. It is valuable of course, since there is no other picture of this interior on Commons, so it ought to be nominated on Valued Images with good chances to get the merit. However, I see nothing to feature here though. --Kreuzschnabel 07:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• That's what happens when you're surfing the net late at night. I've just zoomed it in and saw how poorly detailed it is. Even the altar's details are hardly visible. I doubt it even might be QP.  Strong oppose -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pofka, please take more care to not only examine the picture in detail but also review the category/subject to ensure it is among our best of its class. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the details are so poor like here, there really is no further need for other investigations. -- Pofka (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unsharp, proximal vertical lines leaning in, large blown areas. --Cayambe (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per Cayambe. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Valuable, but unfortunately not good enough for FP. --DXR (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Nice scene but technically unfeaturable. Noise reduction killed any detail, large parts blown, tilted. Far below QI standard, let alone FP. This camera won’t take acceptable images at ISO 400. --Kreuzschnabel 06:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose I'm afraid. Absolutely lacking in any sharpness whatsoever. -- KTC (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: see above -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.