Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Galerie des Batailles

Galerie des Batailles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 22:01:07 (UTC)

Reason: Reasonably high-res. Very well-composed, and very encyclopedic. I think this did reasonably well in the POTD competition for 2011; I'm surprised it wasn't nominated!
Articles in which this image appears: Galerie des Batailles
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: -donald- (Commons)

Support as nominator --ceranthor 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good image, although maybe a touch washed-out looking, ~~but it doesn't illustrate what the caption says it does: None of the art honouring French military history is in view here.~~ ~~I don't think this should be the lead image; an overview showing all the disparate elements would be better. However,~~ it is a good image for the article, so Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Between Ceranthor's edits to this page, and me doing a WP:SOFIXIT, most of the minor objections have been dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blown highlights in the skylight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be hard to fix those, since the camera is pointed right at the light. I'm certainly not capable, in all honesty. ceranthor 02:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could, possibly, be addressed by retaking the image on a cloudy day or a time when the sun isn't directly overhead — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In those cases there would be less light in the surrounding vaults. I think if we accept the value of the straight-up view, we probably also have to accept the blown highlights in the glass. This image shows pretty well how bright the skylights tend to be compared to the surrounding ceiling detail. Chick Bowen 04:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do we have any pictures of the gallery on an overcast day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see any at Commons. Here is a slightly less noisy edit: File:Schlachtengalerie Decke denoised.jpg. ceranthor 17:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blown highlights cannot be easily avoided in this case and the oval structure of it is still clearly to be seen. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support arches are beautiful, but the skylight is still hopelessly blown — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I barely see the relevance of the blown highlights to the application of this photograph - it is not in this instance (I think) distracting, nor is useful information missing. Seems to be a good illustration of an important part of the subject (it is difficult to imagine a subject of which this quality of work would be considered an unimportant part!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High illustrative value.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Limited EV in the context of the article, somewhat soft, a little unbalanced in terms of composition, and (while it may be hard to avoid) the ultrabright skylight makes the image painful to look at and washes out some of the surrounding detail. A reasonable picture for what it does, but not FP. --jjron (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose softer than I would like. --Pine^✉ 07:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Schlachtengalerie Decke.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

81% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]