Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/London

London

 * Reason:One of the best panaroma images i've seen, it is very large and captures both the size and scope of London.
 * Articles this image appears in:London Architecture in London
 * Creator:Thomas Wesenberg


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Ch ild zy  ( Talk 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. There are minor stitching faults (most visible on the horizon) across the entire image. Minor, but a bit irritating. Image quality isn't amazing considering the vertical resolution. I wasn't aware that you were able to access the outside of the dome. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Fog on skyground in mildly annoying but us a good picture-- St.daniel Talk 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Do you want to have another attempt at that sentence? ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It is a nice picture, but there are a few stitching errors, as stated above.Maddiekate 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Big, but not especially good-quality. The stitching errors are easily avoidable and since London's not going anywhere, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect better control of the highlights and more appealing weather (the sun does occasionally come out in London). Not very inspiring. --YFB ¿  21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Diliff, since apparently you can get out on top of the building, any chance you might be able to make a brief trip up there before you head off to the States? --YFB ¿  21:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Its possible, sure. I'll be in London for another four weekends and I work about 10 minutes away near Bank station so it might be possible to pay it a visit on my lunch break. Pending good weather though. As it appears you have to move around the outside of the dome for the 360, I'm hoping that parallax isn't a problem, but even that doesn't explain stitching errors on the horizon. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been up there--it'll be tough, because there's very little room and it's always very crowded. Chick Bowen 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially mid-day. If you had time to wait until closing you can be up there by yourself... it's also a great experience.  I staid up there for a few hours, but only being able to fit it in at lunch suggests you don't have much free time. gren グレン 01:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunately, due to stitching errors. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there is a really bad stitching error on the brick building in the foreground... and, the resolution isn't that impressive. Good job... just not featured picture job. gren グレン 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Untill another pic can be taken/found to improve on the small faults listed above, this definately counts as a very encyclopaedic pic of London in our time. Yes, boring weather etc. But it's a good pic that would be difficult to beat for encyclopaedic-ness. Witty Lama 03:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The stitching errors are too bad, specially if the image is to be printed and observed in detail. There is a huge one in a grey roof close to the lower right corner. Alvesgaspar 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - it's ok, but the glare makes it pretty unappealing to look at. Would you make this image your desktop wallpaper? So, it's a useful image, but not a beautiful one. Also I found the POV a pity, because St Pauls is one of the major landmarks you'd like to be looking *at*, not *from*. Stevage 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - would be "weak support" if stitching errors were fixed, support if it had been even a slightly nicer day! Halsteadk 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)