Comment. I'm bothered about the distortion highlighted in the light on the right. Also please explain where the educational value lies. It's not used in the article on the architect, nor in explaining this sort of design. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict, just to reply in more detail . . . typically infobox images 1- depict the subject of the article, 2- do so better than other images, so infobox images are usually considered to meet the EV requirement portion of the FP criteria. This has been my experience here at FP nominations, I am not saying it is right or wrong (although I usually agree). The FP criteria doesn't define EV in much detail, and reviewers often disagree about "significant EV". . . . About this nom: the article is about the station and the photo depicts it, and it relates to the text: glass and steel curves, two platforms on left, post 2016 renovation. About the light fixture distortion: it is a limitation (of flattening a real life spherical canvas to a 2D canvas) and shows in wide angle shots [1], [2], [3] and the heads of the two side statues in this shot (visible at full size, not full screen). Bammesk (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I kind of wish it was just a little wider so that you could have a thin band of blue sky at the top instead of cutting into the roof support beam. But it's a good shot regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]