Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 0303.jpg

File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 0303.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2015 at 04:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 0303.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 0303.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings (gallery); Category: Featured pictures of architecture
•  Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 04:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I like this picture more every time I watch it. It a different images and composition, but interesting. Some easy to remove traces of green CA (right part).--ArildV (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Very good composition and theme: long live minmalism! Unfortunatley image quality leaves much to be desired: chromatic aberration all over and general softeness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Transparency! --Hubertl (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 18:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support D kuba (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Comment Good composition, nice idea and it's nearly the wow idea to me. --Laitche (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind, Good composition + nearly the wow idea means FP so if the CAs are fixed, I would support. --Laitche (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning composition and use of light. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Fixed Thanks for your advice. CAs are now removed.--XRay ^talk 05:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? ...but looking at the top edges of the right building and the post carefully. --Laitche (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Now it should be better.--XRay ^talk 13:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Kikos (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I'd have probably chosen a different angle to the the first and second lamp a bit closer, but overall FP to me Poco² 08:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Still CAs but acceptable. --Laitche (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support nice and different. --Kadellar (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Baresi F (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support D kuba (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting, different and well-done for those. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 09:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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