Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arc de Triomphe 2007

Arc de Triomphe 2007

 * Reason:Currently a FPC on Commons, earning a lot of support there. Beautiful image, more attractive (in my view) than this earlier nom.
 * Proposed caption:The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier.
 * Articles this image appears in:Arc de triomphe
 * Creator:en:User:blieusong


 * Support as nominator Spikebrennan 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support High resolution, very clear and detailed, very encyclopedic. Good composition (I like the Eiffel Tower and the tree leaves in the foreground). Perhaps a more detailed caption? --Malachirality 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed Revised Caption: The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier. --84.90.46.116 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bravo! (I copied it).  Spikebrennan 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. --84.90.46.116 10:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support Excellent detail and knockout composition between the lighting and Eiffel Tower. I don't know who the anon was but s/he suggested a superior caption.--HereToHelp 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely done blieusong. wonderful light, composition. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've struck-through some unnecessary words in the caption. Pstuart84 Talk 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in fact better with these new changes. Well spotted ;). --84.90.46.116 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, although i would've prefered a version without the leaves, this picture is stunning. The sharpness is unbelievable, and it illustrates the subject well. --Aqwis 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself like the leaves, I think they add to the image by helping frame subject (the arch). --84.90.46.116 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Meets all the criteria - especially lovely composition and execution. Pstuart84 Talk 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose Because of the branches.  AJUK  Talk!! 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I love the composition branches and all and the detail is Dilliffic! There is some fisheyeing but the image looks quite natural in the thumb, so I don't mind it. de Bivort 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Diliffic"…wow, I wish I thought of that!--HereToHelp 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support just as I did on commons, lovely --Pump  me  up  02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I suppose I should take that 'Diliffic' as a compliment. :-) I wouldn't say there is fisheyeing (is there?), as it has been perspective corrected, but the verticals are not entirely vertical. Could do with a slight adjustment, but as you say, it looks quite natural in the thumbnail all the same. Detail is excellent, as is the shadow detail. Very good composition and exposure. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I chose to have the vertical lines converging a little, so it looks "less unnatural". The vertical anchor line is on the left edge of the right arch. I can change this if requested (?). Blieusong 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its ok, I think it looks okay as is. I do appreciate that complete perspective correction results in excessive distortion sometimes. Its a tradeoff. I'm impressed by your photography by the way. We have a similar 'signature' style. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because one copied the other, (hint: it's not you). Your pictures inspired me a lot, and you are certainly responsible for me spending a lot (time and money) in photography :). Blieusong 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Astounding detail. It's as though I were there. --Bridgecross 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Verticals look a little off as discussed above (I just get the feeling of a slight lean to the right), and I've said it before, but I think daytime shots have a higher encyclopaedic value; however these issues are compensated for by a good capture with sufficient light, and overall attractiveness of the image. --jjron 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, great picture. But I see blurrs around edges of it, that may just be due to my crappy monitor! — j acĸrм  (talk ) 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - would be "strong" if the leaves weren't in there. Besides being distracting they're also an odd colour and (obviously) out of focus. If they didn't occupy quite so much of the picture, I'd suggest removing them with PS; given the flat sky, the work would be fairly seamless. Still, an awesome picture. Matt Deres 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)