Support - Very nice photo. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jobas (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great image, but at full size the CA is very heavy in some places. Any chance of getting a raw file from the author to tweak it a bit?--Godot13 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader seems to have left Wikipedia. Think he was only pulled in for WLM. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sigh, another grave. Support on condition that it will be placed lower down in signHafspajen (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: great image and absolutely beautiful. Fylbecatuloustalk 21:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I wonder if it can be conominated with to give it another angle. Mattximus (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: Not a bad photo (although the camera isn't as good, and it shows a bit) but it's usually best not to make a set mixing different photographers, cameras and such: In a set like Diliff's cathedral sets, if someone likes one image, it's likely they'll like the others in the set: The same sort of artistic decisions, camera, time of shoot, and so on are all present. But if you're using images where the only similarity is the subject then you can easily hit a very confusing situation where a lot of the votes are "Support X, Oppose Y" and so on. It makes it a bit of a mess. Better to nominate in two nominations, there's no rule that every image of a subject has to be lumped into one set in order to pass FPC. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
