Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bahrain Fountain

Bahrain Fountain edit

Original - Bahrain's 123 meter-high fountain off the coast of Manama. The mechanism is contained in a barge, securely anchored to the seabed with several massive anchors measuring 132.25 metres and weighing 300 metric tons.

Edit1 by jjron (cropped, straightened and downsampled)

Reason: Hi-res, with very low noise levels. Long exposure night shot, notably difficult to capture without bad lighting or a high noise level. I haven't found a better pic of this fountain online.
Articles this image appears in: Bahrain
Creator: Vladimic Arsh[1]

Support as nominator DMCer ™ 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova^Charge! 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not encyclopedic for the article for which it is nominated. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Respectfully disagree, though I sort of see where you're coming from. I think a photo of an island nation's main landmark, illustrating the coastline of that same country is very encyclopedic. I suppose someone could make a stub about the fountain itself, then renominate it, but why bother if a quality photo is relevant to the article it accompanies? It's sourced in the article from a regional newspaper as well.—DMCer ™ 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this fountain is this enormous, it seems like it would satisfy the notability requirements and would be a perfectly appropriate subject for its own article, and this photo would then certainly be encyclopedic to illustrate such an article. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There wouldn't be a version with more space at the top would there? I don't think it's cutoff, but it strikes me as uncomfortably tight, which doesn't help the composition. The coastline doesn't add much either as it's mainly just lights; it would possibly be more visually appealing in portrait rather than landscape composition. --jjron (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. As I noted, I haven't seen a different version that meets this quality.-DMCer ™ 09:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be worth cropping this to a portrait orientation would it, just to see (the photo's got enough height to do so and still easily meet size requirements)? I also find the part where it goes dark at the right to be unbalanced with the lights along the coastline, which the crop would help. --jjron (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the composition here, the way the fountain intersects the photo. The coastline, in addition to serving as an object with which to contrast the hight of the water trail, also illustrates e article topic (the city itself). I'd welcome a cropped upload, but I don't really see the need.-DMCer ™ 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd do a crop on it myself, but to be honest it doesn't really do enough for me to put in the work. --jjron (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I've put up an Edit1. Cropped, downsampled (original quality wasn't great), and straightened (original appeared to have a slight tilt when I opened it in Photoshop). --jjron (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- love the composition of Edit1. Too bad it isn't stunning enough for FP, but the encyclopedic value has tripled. pschemp | talk 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Interesting concept, but the image is noisy, the lights are burnt-out and there is too much black space. Chris.B 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]