Oppose: EV questionable - nobody would guess this is a municipal building, and where or what it is. No indication of its public character (public entrance, symbols). Light focus not on the subject. Christmastree-style lighting detracts from the building's architecture. Adjacent elements (tree, continuation of the building) look croped rather than form part of the composition. How about a daylight image from the axis of the main entrance? Elekhh (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I too, question the EV. However, it is not my primary reason to oppose: The light source coming from the left caught the lens and caused self-illumination, which could have been prevented by using some sort of lens hood. ZooFariBoo! 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glad I am not the only one to oppose this, I waited until someone else started the process. I agree with both previous opposes, and add that the image isn't very crisp at all. Part of FPC is that is should be able to be reprinted. That means high pixel count, but also crispness, which this image does not have. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the photo again, I feel I should elaborate. As with most photos of tall objects, the bottom is crisper than the top. The bottom is fine, however the block windows and the dome both lose focus. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately I don't think the dim incandescent lighting helps this scene. It's a nice scene, but wouldn't it be better during the day? I know there would be a lot more distractions, but at least it wouldn't be monochromatic. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. upstateNYer 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It should have a stronger EV. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
