Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kaleva Church

Kaleva Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2020 at 09:28:58 (UTC)

Original – The modern Kaleva Church, designed by Reima and Raili Pietilä, is situated in Liisankallio, Tampere.

Reason

high EV, good quality, architecturally interesting

Articles in which this image appears

Kaleva Church, Kaleva (Tampere), Reima and Raili Pietilä, Tampere

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

kallerna

• Support as nominator —kallerna 09:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Any word on what country this is in? – Sca (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's in Tampere, Finland -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's a great image of a very interesting building by a notable architect couple. It may not be immediately obvious that it's a church (known locally as the 'soul silo'!), but it's basically a re-imagining of the cathedral, and especially the interior is gorgeous. And yes, I realise none of that has anything to do with the FP nom, but thought I'd mention it anyway. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

We really need an interior photo in the article... --Janke | Talk 14:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Janke: There are a few in the commons folder, although they don't (can't, really) quite convey the sense of space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Gets my (perchance a bit too provincial) support ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stub article. Composition not helped by the people. Slightly tilted. Not sure what the white blobs in the grass are. Birds? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Charles. And vertical perspective seems slightly distorted. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed the perspective and tilt. White blobs are weeds and birds, I cloned one bird out. —kallerna 14:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, can you add more referenced content to the article, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• The finnish article is quite extensive, I could translate some content from there. I’m quite busy during the weekend but we’ll see. —kallerna 11:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Added some content. Not worse than most articles in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture. —kallerna 11:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support under the assumption the article will at least be a bit bigger before it's considered for main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 09:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Question I don't think we should make this sort of assumption. BUT, I've read through the FP criteria and I cannot find any guideline that excludes stub articles. I have assumed, because my images in stub articles have been rejected, that article size is a criteria. Opinions anyone? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• "because my images in stub articles have been rejected", could you give us some examples please (where article size was the reason for rejection), so that we are all on the same page? Bammesk (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's not a requirement, but if notability isn't established, that can sink a nom, obviously. More relevant to Charles' question is that a failure to have a reasonably long article will block POTD, and some people will vote accordingly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 18:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Here is my take, I go by one or two paragraphs, not one or two sentences. For a notable subject, it shouldn't be much effort to have one or two paragraphs. Criterion 5 says "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article". If an article, for all practical purposes, is not written, then the image can't add significant EV to what is not-there-to-be-understood. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)