Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian Synchrotron

Australian Synchrotron

 * Reason:Highly encyclopaedic small panorama, and rare to get this sort of image. I certainly couldn't see anything like this, at least on Wiki. High-tech facilities like this are not generally available for the public or photography, and are not easy to photograph due to lighting, size, etc. Maybe not the highest quality image I've ever put up, but I think quality meets guidelines, and composition, rareness, and EV make it worthy of FP.
 * Articles this image appears in:Australian Synchrotron, Synchrotron, Storage ring
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I really like that there are people there to provide scale. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish this photo was bigger. smooth0707  (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Good enc, could be larger (= more detailed...) --Janke | Talk 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too small for a panorama. There should be greater detail of the subject. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You've got a minor stitching error ~935 pixels from right&mdash;look at the rails. Thegreenj 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is a stitching error (I could be wrong though)... It does look funny but each of the 'ghost' lines (why would there be two of them? usually theres just one ghost, unless there was enough overlap that three frames contained the object) seem to lead somewhere both on the top of the synchrotron and also on the device at the bottom. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greenj was right, there was a stitching error - not sure how I missed that. I have repaired it from the original and, to save hassles, reuploaded over the version with the error (i.e., the version shown here is the same as it was, but with the error fixed). --jjron (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see it now. I was referring to something completely different obviously. That stitching error is so minute I completely missed it, even when looking for it where he described. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Must say I had to look pretty closely and wasn't sure I'd got the right thing at first - I think I was confused by him giving the distance in from the right rather than the left, and was trying to look in both places. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Agreed that it could/should be a bit larger, but IMO it is still detailed enough to see what it is. Compositionally it is a bit awkward with the 'thing' on the front right cut off though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think stitching was done unproperly (minor errors visible despite small size, vertical lines not so vertical), but I don't find them distracting at all, and the view is interesting. Blieusong (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - great quality photo. I can actually see the outside of the building from my window here, but I've never been inside. Stevage 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)