Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nave of Nantes cathedral

Nave of Nantes Cathedral

 * Reason:Obviously illustrative of the inside aspect of the building, "Valued Image" on Commons for the scope "Cathédrale Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Nantes (interior)".
 * Articles this image appears in:Nantes Cathedral
 * Creator:Eusebius


 * Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perspective distortion => MER-C 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SupportErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.  Syn  ergy 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful picture.   Spinach Dip  21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Aesthetically pleasing, good EV too. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Has all the features an FP needs. Well done. Jerry teps (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though illustrative of the inside of the building, the technicals aren't good enough, IMO. The image is tilted (look at the left along the side of the image), the upper right side is really bright, and I feel it obscures the detail in that area and detreacts a bit from image as a whole. In addition, sharpness is a tad lacking.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The lighting and composition don't convince me. This looks particularly dull and uninspiring; and it shouldn't.   Mae din \talk 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted: Perspective distortion is easily fixable, closing an image 24 hours after an easily fixable problem is brought up as an overrule-not promote is simply unforgivable. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor technically. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Relisting this picture was a mild and civilized way of dealing with a gross closing mistake. After this agressive striking action, the question is: shall we continue with the poll or just promote the picture, as it should have been done before? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tilt, murky lighting, uncertain composition. --jjron (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The behaviour around "do the original votes count yes-no-yes-no" has ruined any chance of this having a fair run anymore. Per talk page, provisionally promoting per original votes, but listing as a delist nom. --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please play fair. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)