Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Needle Panorama

Panoramic View of Seattle

 * Reason:Great view of the City. PLUS, It shows people what the view looks like from the famous Space Needle.
 * Articles this image appears in:Seattle, Washington
 * Creator:photographed by S. Bach, stitched by A. Hornung using Hugin


 * Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support There's minor problems with the details here and there (mostly a lack of sharpness, but the bottom right corner has color splotches) but it's outweighed by sheer scope.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Theoretically could be taken on a better day, but considering perfectly clear skies aren't exactly common in Seattle this is probably about as good as we'll get. faithless   (speak)  02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Image is not exactly in perfect focus and the right hand side is almost completely washed out by the sun. §tepshep   •   ¡Talk to me!  15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe the blown-out area on the far right should be cropped out? CillaИ &diams; XC 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image isn't quite 306˚ as is. Something is better than nothing, IMHO.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support -- good quality, informative Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit 1 I don't think there is any need for downsampling. It just removes data which could be useful Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Edit 1 per Mahahahaneapneap. The original could use some downsampling, but the edit has gone just a bit too far. For example, the stripes of the tower ~13265 px in (which I think would make a good measure of how far to downsample) are not entirely resolved in the edit. If CillianXC still has a copy of the edit before downsample, I'd suggest a width of around 15000px would be better. Thegreenj 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Picture is terrible quality.  crassic ![ talk ] 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, there is plenty of texture missing on building surfaces, looks like some strange noise reduction. Sharpness is lacking a bit as well. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose per Fcb. Cacophony (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support ...edit 1: crop a bit too tight. Spencer  T♦C 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very vivid and bright picture. — ComputerGuy890100  Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)