Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King Alfred's Tower

King Alfred's Tower edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2014 at 10:45:33 (UTC)

Original – View of King Alfred's Tower from the west on a sunny summer day. The tower, in Brewham, was planned by Henry Hoare II in the 1760s to commemorate the end of the Seven Years' War. It is now a Grade I listed building.

Reason: Good technical quality, lead image in a relatively well developed article, used in several articles. Only improvement I can imagine would be a bit tighter crop above the tower, but this is fine.
Articles in which this image appears: King Alfred's Tower +5
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jürgen Matern

Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Interesting image of an interesting building. (Although in this view it looks a bit out of plumb, even though the ground seems to slant the other way a bit. Perspective?) Sca (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sca, I noticed that too. See this though. It's almost perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unusual architecture presented well.--Godot13 (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2014(UTC)
Support - Interesting picture. Really. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)^{weird, it is not slanting, indeed. But here on the nomination it looks like it does- wonder why... I think the shadow at the left.}[reply]
Support - It's not what I'd call a pretty building, and staring at the image for too long is disconcerting, but yeah, the quality is there. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry to go agains the stream but I don't like the angle and perspective. In my opinion bringing the vertical lines to perfect parallelism wasn't the best solution. The lighting and image quality are not the ideal either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Great building but I find it is poorly lit and perspective over corrected. While straight it is rather top heavy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the criticism of the perspective. I think this perspective would work better although without the branch in the way. --Pine^✉ 07:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]