Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mtskheta, Georgia — Samtavro Orthodox Church.jpg

Samtavro Transfiguration Orthodox Church in Mtskheta
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2014  at 18:17:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:1) I am not well informed in technical standards but I think it's quite good. 2)high resolution 3)Is among Wikipedia's best work: impressive 4)Has a free license 5)Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation
 * Articles in which this image appears:Samtavro Transfiguration Orthodox Church
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Others
 * Creator:Stefano Bolognini, uploader Giorgi Balakhadze


 * Support as nominator – g. balaxaZe  ✰  18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Composition is weak. Why are the nun's feet cut off? Why are we shown almost exclusively the wall? If the nun was the focus of the shot, why is she all the way at the bottom? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay it shows that you don't like my caption of the photo, my only will was to show symbolism of care. I don't know, I don't exclude the focus of the shot was the wall of the 11th century church and at this time nun appeared on the photo, but this makes it more interesting and impromptu, what actually not bad. -- g. balaxaZe  ✰  10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd only gotten a little bit lower, this would have probably been quite good (as an image, not for the church article). With the feet cropped off, the scene isn't conveyed as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the composition is actually only a fraction off being good, but unfortunately a miss is as good as a mile in this case. 109.156.52.192 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although it's a pretty picture, I think the EV is troubling low. You can't be able to tell whether it's a church or not just from this view. I would much rather see a full view of the church to understand fully what the Samtavro looks like. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a photo in the article that does show the full church. The photo here is good for showing the scale of the building against a human figure, and for showing the typical masonry with its varied sizes of blocks, and the weathering on them in places, and the various restorations. But it just isn't good enough for a featured picture, I think. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While superficially attractive as an image, especially at first glance, it has flaws that make it fail as an ideal photograph for an encyclopedia entry, and thus unsuitable to be a featured picture. The overly-cut off foreground has been mentioned, but more importantly (since it is an architectural subject) is the cut-off apex of the arch of the blind arcade on the left side, and the cut-off top of the hooded moulding over the large window. Also, this church has a very symmetrical facade, which would have been better revealed by having the center line of the large window in the exact middle of the photo, and not offset to the right as it is. I think the photographer has been more intent on recording the old woman sweeping than the architecture (which is fine, if the photo was on Wikipedia to illustrate old Georgian matrons who lurk in churches and graveyards rather than an article on medieval Georgian architecture). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)