Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blois panorama

Blois panorama
Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2011 at 22:29:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:Extraordinary panorama photograph, with high ev
 * Articles in which this image appears:Blois
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice technical quality, but the caption in the article doesn't tell me very much. Names of landmarks, the direction of the photo, time of day, and time of year would all be helpful in convincing me that this has strong EV. Without more information, it's a good photo but lacking in EV. The description here in the nomination is better but still doesn't convince me of strong EV. Pinetalk 06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Generally well done as usual. I think the EV is there, just the article doesn't have much to say about it yet. There is a double bird in the cloud to the left of the cathedral and possibly a double duck in the river. One of each of those should probably be cloned out, but it doesn't matter much. There is one stitching line that I can see in the water, but it is faint and I doubt it could be avoided. Do you use a panorama jig for this sort of shot, or only for photos with stuff in the foreground? JJ Harrison (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only use a panoramic head for interior shots usually, almost any outdoor shot without foreground elements can easily be shot handheld. It helps to attempt to pivot on the focal point instead of panning though but only if I'm doing a really wide angle pano ((ie showing tiles on the ground or something) would I bother. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is basically a stronger version of the lead image. It strikes me as odd that the other has pride of place while this one is towards the bottom of the article; I don't think there's any need for them both to be there. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A panorama would be kind of weird in an infobox, wouldn't it? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was why I placed it where I did. Although I often tend to think my photos are superior than the existing ones, I try to slide my photos in with the least friction possible, and let other editors decide to place it elsewhere. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It depicts the city pretty well, even better than the lead picture, IMO. -- Paolostefano1412 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly passes, just needs better placement in the article for optimal EV, atm it's just a little lost sitting at the bottom of the page. Fallschirmjäger &#9993; 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the styling now? If it's not acceptable, anyone may revert me. Tomer T (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support But I agree with the comments made above. Any improvements will be good. SMasters (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)