Mmmmh. Some comments: 1) Not sure if it really fits the scope. I'd expect something like a wide-angle shot of the area, not just a fountain. 2) Geocoding is missing. Should be quite easy to at least add {{Object location}}. 3) 1,235 × 1,280 pixels seems pretty small for a scan from a 6×6 slide (not really an issue for VIC, though). 4) The whole thing looks very purple. I'd guess that either something went wrong during the digitizig process, or the original has deteriorated quite a bit over time. Don't really feel like supporting this at the moment. --El Grafo (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Info created a new category with the name of the fountain, as there seems to be at least on other fountain in the gardens. Also added geocoding. Added {{Location estimated}} just for the record, I'm pretty sure the location is correct. --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I hate to decline nominations, but in this case I can't see any value in a scan of a weak old picture with unnatural colours (let alone the strange frame), if the motif itself hasn't changed over the decades. I'd appreciate further opinions on the matter. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]