Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tatev monastery

Reason: An encyclopedic example of a cliffside fortified monastery with only one entry point. Certainly has a wow factor.
Articles this image appears in: Tatev
Creator: Eupator

Support Edit 1 as nominator -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Unfortunately, the subject, which is interesting, is cut off at left, and I'd also like to see a little more at the bottom. If this indeed is a panorama (which I doubt, I guess it is not stitched from several images) - but if, can we get a new stitch with a little more at left & bottom? --Janke | Talk 18:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a stitched panorama. However I have an alternative shot from the same vantage point that shows more of the left and bottom . I'll upload it now.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Encyclopedic how? – Jerry^teps 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the entire monastery, clearly indicating the scale of the complex and its (rather dramatic) cliffside location. I'm not sure what more you want. Raven4x4x (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an intermediate crop and some levels would be really nice. Something along these lines: Stevage 12:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 by Stevage, just a quick demonstration of a better crop, and some more contrast would be nice too.

Support The edit by Stevage also does an excellent job in bringing out the red tint of the cliffs as well as the sparkling white tone of the church itself.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small file size. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Great picture, what I meant was that you didn't explain how it was encyclopedic, you just said it was. I'd change to support if the caption was changed. The people/cars in the picture just ruin it for me. – Jerry^teps 02:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like any of the crops... the features of the buildings seem soft and there isn't enough detail. These are useful pics but not featurable ones in my opinion. gren グレン 07:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]