Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DeKalb Church Scientist Third St

Sunset over steeple.

 * Reason:Self-nom, I just really liked the photograph, its composition and contrast. The way the sunlight bathed the steeple, almost as if it were holy. Just a really good image, I thought, and I don't often think things I create are worth much. Take it as you will
 * Articles this image appears in:DeKalb, Illinois
 * Creator:Andy McMurray
 * Nominator: A mcmurray


 * Support &mdash; A mcmurray 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose well to me there is nothing particularly special about this image that makes you go wow. I dislike how the trees cover up pretty much the whole front of the church, also this might just be me but it looks like it is at a bit of a tilt. &mdash; Arjun 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not a particularly attractive image. Basically, this looks like a photo anyone could take with their new digital camera, and it doesn't show any special composition skills. I'll leave technical comments to the regulars.--Iriseyes 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't feel strongly enough either way about this picture. I would like to note, however, that sunsets of any sort are ususally struck down for FP status.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not uber high res, technical problems, bad composition, boring shot, blown highlights, glare problems, grainy, unnatural photoshopping, better as SVG, blah blah blah the usual list :) There's nothing specific in my mind about this image, but sorry it's just not FP material. Don't let all of these opposes intimidate you, your shot is competing for the highest honor a wikipedia upload can achieve --⁪froth T C  23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * better as SVG... :-) -- Tewy  23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One of my favorite default oppose reasons :) --⁪froth T C  00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not intimidated. It's good to get such feedback so if I nominate other images or take others that I nominate I will know what to look for/what to take. A mcmurray 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a pretty shot, but for featured pictures you need encyclopedic value. Since most of the church is in shadow, the left side is covered by a tree, and the right side is cut off, you can't really see what it looks like. And what little lighting there is (on the steeple) prevents one from seeing the actual color. So while it may look nice, it doesn't have the encyclopedic value that is required of featured pictures. -- Tewy  23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose on composition. Lower building in shadow, tree obscures nice columned front, parking lot and chain link fence visible. --Bridgecross 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The picture itself is not very good, and at a glance looks quite blurry. Plus there are street signs everywhere like the one way sign which are major eye sores. Another eye sore is the obstructing tree, its not taken at a nice angle for the tree to look nice. Another thing that i personally dislike is the shading, the main building is in slight shadows and the tower is quite illuminated. Mabye another picture of the same subject could become a featured picuture. Voshvoshka 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You should never judge a picture "at a glance". I don't know if you did on this one or not, but just saying... -- Tewy  01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't judge it at a glance, but i think that a picture should look apealing to the eye when you first look at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voshvoshka (talk • contribs).
 * Oppose The main thing that does it for me is the tree. A couple other things are the lighting and the angle. 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Poor encyclopedic value: is this really an iconic image of DeKalb? It looks like any old church.  Also oppose on technical ground listed above. &mdash;Dgiest c 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)