Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg

File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings