Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenkirche Munich March 2013.JPG

Image:Frauenkirche Munich March 2013.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 05:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice perspective and light. The high shooting position gives the photo deepness and plasticity. Two aspects are slightly disturbing (but not enough for decline): Firstly the yellow crane at the right side in the forground which cuts a small part of the Frauenkirche (probabably PS experts could remove it). Secondly the scaffold around the main tower. Scaffolding is a common phenomenon with old German buildings because the town adminstrations are really fanatic with (minor) security issues thus buildings are often scaffoled for an indefinite period of time (the same with the Dome of Cologne). --Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good atmosphere; but not sharp (even if it may not be the intention here) compared to File:Frauenkirche Munich - View from Peterskirche Tower.jpg. J Kadavoor J e e 07:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Jkadavoor --Arcalino (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no issues with sharpness. The lighting has a certain quality which the other image does not have. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the lighting; it is more interesting here. J Kadavoor J e e 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this fine image of a crane, but who put that damned building there. :) That crane crosses so many tiny details, I wouldn't even begin to attempt to remove it (personally). But your lighting and color are fantastic. Maybe in the future, you can replace it, but this picture caught my eye. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 09:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and sharp enough. --Selbymay (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improvable sharpness but very nice lighting, subject, ...and city Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could do with a bit more crispness and a day without the crane. B.p. 11:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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