Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Auditorio de Tenerife at Night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2013 at 20:29:42 (UTC)

Reason: Sharp, high-res photo that is encyclopedic and pretty unique. It's used well in the lighting section of the article, though it would probably be fine as a lead image.
Articles in which this image appears: Auditorio de Tenerife
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --ceranthor 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good EV for the lighting section of the article but it would not be fine as the lead image (since it doesn't depict the overall shape of the building well). Technical quality is good and composition is interesting. dllu (t,c) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I shuffled the images (and replace one) to get a better understanding about the shape of the building. J Kadavoor J e e 03:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Difficult to comprehend the scale of the building due to absence of a human figure, vehicle or trees. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though this alone should not completely discredit this wonderful picture. There is a door at the bottom left of the building which I used as a frame of reference, and the windows near the bottom I think also are helpful. ceranthor 00:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per dllu. --Godot13 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it's titled "at night", but this picture is just too dark for me - I would not have known this was a building unless it was mentionned. I would rather see this taken early evening, while there is still naturally lit viewable details... With the false lighting this picture just seems very soft to me, with very limited detail... I agree about the scale issue too - I know there is a door, but due to the lighting I can only take your word for it that a) it is a door, and b) that it is a normal sized door... gazhiley 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture taken on daytime by the same author may have better EV. J Kadavoor J e e 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's an impressive building... And only serves to re-inforce my Oppose on the nom'd picture, as I did not think it looked anything like that based on the softness and missing detail caused by the level of darkness... I would love to see the same angle as this nom, but it daylight... gazhiley 15:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've one by a different author; but the quality is... J Kadavoor J e e 17:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think that this is a decent picture, but this, the rear view, isn't nearly as good as the side view in the daytime picture. It's almost a misrepresentation, but certainly an undersell of the building. If we're going to have one image be the lead, the go to representation for this building, it needs to be the side view. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]