Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:2008-0913-USCOSU-Pan01.JPG

File:2008-0913-USCOSU-Pan01.JPG

 * Reason:Certainly not a perfect panorama. Let me first point out the flaws so you don't have to. ;-) It's not very sharp at 100%, the perspective is slightly off, it is was noisy, but I've cleaned that up a bit. Okay, they're the flaws. However, it's high resolution which makes up for the lack of detail (if you downsample it to minimum requirements, it's more than detailed enough IMO), there are no stitching flaws as far as I can see, it's an interesting scene showing the stadium shape, along with the fans and their attire. I think this makes up for the flaws and this is not the sort of subject that we have a lot of quality images of.
 * Articles this image appears in:Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, 2008 Ohio State Buckeyes football team and 2008 USC Trojans football team.
 * Creator:User:Bobak


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom, we've seen better but I think we are selective enough without quibbling over the slight issues present here. However, it needs a more descriptive file name.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good, considering the lighting (I know I would do a lot worse), and kudos for not downsampling. It looks perfectly sharp at 2000*640, so I can't complain about the sharpness at full resolution. Do you know why the flag on the right of the picture is at half mast? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was down for 9/11 and they never put it back up?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a terrible rail accident in Los Angeles the day prior (see 2008 Chatsworth train collision). --Bobak (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm flattered --I also agree with the nominator's assessment and impressed by the improvements. I took it without a tripod, over a period of a few seconds, so that's why its not as sharp as it could be. --Bobak (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The building on the right looks tilted. --Muhammad (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose My Ohio State Buckeyes lost by a lot. Oppose. When viewed full, perspective does show to be an issue, with the buildings on the far left tilted slightly one way, and the scoreboard on the left tilted the other. Even with some good NR, noise is still quite apparent, but not to a very bad degree, but still worth noting. In addition, I'm not convinced a downsample would fully help the sharpness issues—the lack of a tripod does leave a little to be desired. I'm not convinced that a downsample could really improve the sharpness. Before this, I just had a "weak oppose" until I noticed stitching errors. Stitching errors: Look at the two guys with orange-ish shirts on the lower right. Look between their shoulders and go up. The stitching line is evident even though the lack of sharpness hides it. (Look at the guy right above their shoulders with the hat). Another error: See the big orange railing in the lower center? Follow it along the bottom and to the right, where there is another stitching flaw. (Right below the man with the white OSU #28 jersey).
 * Sorry, I really like the image, it's a great capture with good enc., but the issues prevent me from supporting.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Too bad people had pretty much left the stadium during this moment of garbage time against Washington last season (see image), but then again I wouldn't have been able to move to these seats. --Bobak (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a nice shot too, but probably doesn't have the same drama of the nominated image. Given the slight perspective tilt and the (admittedly minor) stitching fault mentioned by Spencer, would you mind if I had a go at re-stitching it? Unfortunately that would mean you emailing me the images so if you're not prepared to do that, I'll understand. I'll send you an email pre-emptively just in case though, so you could reply with them attached. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but the tilt should be fixed. Probably something like this --Muhammad (talk)  20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom (not sharp, perspective being off) and the overly exposed lighting--Caspian blue 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Previously noisy areas are now extremely blurry (see dark area of field), upper-left corner of image is missing, weak EV, lighting could be better (this is one of those rare instances where I think HDR could actually help). Otherwise, a pretty impressive image. Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks substantial EV in the articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

4 S, 3.5 O → Sorry, no can do. -- wadester 16  19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)