Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ArtScience Museum, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg

File:ArtScience Museum, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2018 at 06:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:ArtScience Museum, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ArtScience Museum, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Since FP is supposed to be the "finest on Commons", I checked what other photos we had of this unusual building. This I'm afraid has to be one of the least interesting viewpoints of the building and the worst light. The underside of the curve appears to be a very matt material, making for very boring grey curve compared to the other surfaces or other metallic buildings. The building randomly overlaps other skyscrapers in this composition. Compare view from above, lights and reflections at night, and another night, combination with other interesting buildings, isolated, above again, another combination. All this angle/light does is show what a "carbuncle" it is. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• The quality of all these pictures is quite bad, unfortunately. I like the water here, this space-exploration building, and the pastel colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• +1 for the pastel colors. I also like the very urban perspective. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• I would term "pastel colours" as being light and colourful. This is mostly shades of grey, with very ordinary water, and from this angle/light, the curve of the building doesn't actually have any shades -- it is very flat matt. If you are concentrating on the technical quality of the other pictures, then you are missing the point, which is about light and composition and angle of view. Yes this space-exploration building is unusual, but we have 100+ photos of it and taking a picture with a DSLR is not how one makes an FP. There are far more interesting pictures, with better light and better view, of this building on Commons. QI is for DSLR-technical-quality photos that lack the other aspects. This is really very much a QI. FP should show that the photographer knows how to take a great photo and has had or made a great opportunity to capture an image with wow. Technical quality is just a baseline, say thanks to the Canon engineers, and lets consider wow. Compared to the category on Commons, I see no wow. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Support--Isiwal (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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