Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mercury City Tower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2015 at 05:40:00 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Mercury City Tower, Moscow International Business Center, List of tallest buildings in the world, Eurasian Economic Union
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: A.Savin

Support as nominator – sst✈^discuss 05:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd prefer to see the base too, but this is good enough for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of the Moscow International Business Center means that any image of the Mercury City Tower with the base would have to include other buildings in the complex. Look at this image to see what I mean. sst✈^discuss 00:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The angle shows the less distinctive flater side of the building and the base is not show (actually over 1/3 of the height of the building including most of the bottom tier is missing). It took the wireframe image in Mercury City Tower and other photos to actually get a feel for the shape and scale of the building. - Wolftick (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I like it, but IMHO the missing base doesn't seem to meet FP standards. APK whisper in my ear 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AgnosticPreachersKid: Which of the WP:WIAFP does this image not meet? sst✈^discuss 05:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." APK whisper in my ear 06:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, any image with the base would have "highly distracting or obstructing elements". sst✈^discuss 08:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous photos of this building that include the base without distracting or obstructing elements (it helps that it's bright orange) and also give a better impression of the shape of the building - Wolftick (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Without base looks airily suspended, and from this vantage point building's lateral depth is hidden, reducing EV. Sca (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting view, but oppose per Wolftick, APK, Sca. I'd be happy if the whole height were shown (should be stitchable from two 17mm shots), although obviously having the broadside angle would be best. Samsara 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Would've been better with the base. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsatisfactory composition, to my eye. 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but also seems quite grainy in places... gazhiley 11:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]