Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Neptunbrunnen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 11:56:36 (UTC)

Original – Aerial view from Fernsehturm of Neptunbrunnen (Neptune Fountain) in Berlin, Germany.

Reason: Good quality and high EV for showing the fountain and its surrounding square. FP, VI and QI in Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Neptunbrunnen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Ajepbah

Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Loose composition. Low EV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sca (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2015
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low EV for the fountain itself. If there were something on the square, maybe, but the fountain is barely discernible at thumbnail. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me - the high of the camera position isn't ideal but everything is clear, and fountain is centre and in just about enough detail. What do you mean by "Loose Composition" Sca? I don't understand your terminology. The fountain is dead centre, exactly the same amount of each green triangles showing, the horiozontal and vertical lines of the lighter paving is plum... gazhiley 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too much space around central edifice. (Per Chris). – Sca (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the Nom is for the "fountain and its surrounding square", which increases the EV by showing the setting it is in... gazhiley 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty space usually is boring. True, there are people in it, but from this vantage point they are too small to be interesting. Aesthetically and in terms of EV, it's a substandard composition, IMO. Sca (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is on the fountain, so the empty space limits the EV. If the article had discussion of the square, it might be different. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, take a look at this photo of another Neptune fountain, this one in Gdańsk. – Sca (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Crisco, it doesn't show the fountain clearly, and the article is about the fountain and not the square. Mattximus (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I haven't been to this fountain but I have seen similar fountains in person. This is not a good image of the fountain (the angle of view diminishes height). Bammesk (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Love the composition, but I agree about the lack of EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]