Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre-dame basilique montreal

Notre-Dame basilica of Montreal

This is the interior of Notre-Dame basilica in Montreal. Image created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie.

Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 19:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We recently featured Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg which I think is better. This one seems to be overcropped at the top and especially the bottom, IMO. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have to agree that the current image is far superior. The exposure just isn't that good in this example. Overexposed in parts, an incomplete view and not the best vantage point (further back down the church was better). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The existing FP is better. No need to make this an FP. Mikeo 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The exsting FP is indeed better but we should acknowledge the work put in by Jean-Pierre to create this lovely image - Adrian Pingstone 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. And although I agree that Diliff's version is better, I don't think this should be reason for this nomination to fail. I mean if we didn't have Diliff's panorama, this would be definite winner. I don't think the double up of subject is a problem. Good sharpness and exposure. --Fir0002 www 08:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunate framing, this is like looking through a mail slot. --Dschwen 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support. I'm not sure if there's a policy on images of the same subject, but this photograph is excellent on its own and even beats out the larger image in a few areas. The colors are richer in places (although overexposure is admittedly a problem.) Also, and the lighting is different. For instance, compare the statues above jesus in this photo to those in the other one. They are much better illuminated and easier to see in this photo. -Fadookie ^Talk 13:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Incomplete view, no considerable advantage overexisting FP. ~MDD 46 96 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack Stephen Turner. Also, tilted verticals left & right. --Janke | Talk 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I want to see the dome. Previous FP is superior. Mooveeguy 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Am I the only one who sees what look like blown highlights? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]