Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster

The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster


I took this image the other day as a replacement of the existing image for this subject, as it improves both the angle and the context. I feel this image is of very high resolution/quality (2662x5500)and although it isn't immediately stunning to the eye, I feel it adds good value to the article (as the intricate detail is very visible at 100%) and is iconic enough for FP.


 * Nominate and abstain. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent quality. I enjoyed watching at all the crisp details that can be seen in full size. It is good to have such high quality pictures here - this really exemplifies the best in Wikipedia. Mikeo 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great detail, nice resolution, clear and crisp. It would be nice if it was taken in clear skies, but it's still excellent. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As per nomination and Mikeo. It might need to be slightly rotated, though, as it all looks rather titled. Support edit 1. Oppose edit 2 . Nauticashades 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * a very nice picture that I shall support. Couple (very minor) things though, Is it just me or is the clock tower leaning slighty? It could well be my eyes (or my computer could be on an angle :p). Also might it not be better to centre the tower? The rest of the buildig is so small I don't think cuting a bit off would matter, though we would end up with an awfly narrow image... say1988 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely crisp high detail. I did a test in Photoshop, and the Clock Tower is indeed not leaning at all, though it appears to be to naked eye... — Abraham Lure 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great Photograph! | AndonicO 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support very nice composition, lighting --rogerd 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent detail. Good framing.  FP! --Bridgecross 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This is a wonderful, encyclopedic image. It appears to lack something in thumbnail, but it's stunning at full resolution.  Re: tilt -- The left front corner of the tower is plumb, but due to perspective distortion common in architectural photos, the right front and left rear corners are not plumb.  None of this is a problem IMO -- he's done a wonderful job of composing to minimize the effects. -- Moondigger 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I wasn't too impressed until I saw the full image. Really nice shot of a very common building which I've seen hundreds of (less detailed) photos! InvictaHOG 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent. Wow. chowells 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing detail. It just reminds me how much I'd like to go there and see it myself, in its surroundings.  --Paul 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Does not look amazing in thumbnail, but at full resolution I found myself looking all over the little details. Excellent depiction of the subject. HighInBC 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although it looks to me like the photo may be slightly tilted to the left. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Exceptional detail at full size. -- Tewy  03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great image, and by cropping in on just the Tower you get far more detail for the Big Ben article (rather than the entire building/complex with just a note as to what is Big Ben). Staxringold talkcontribs 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: looks great! --Bhadani 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I must say that this is the most extreme example of a really bad thumbnail from a really good full size photo that I have seen on Wikipedia. Is there anything that can be done to have the quality of the thumbnail better reflect the quality of the original? The Blackfriar 23:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Fantastic detail on the full res image! I think the illusion of the tower leaning is due to the angle the image was taken at I've uploaded an edit for consideration. --Fir0002 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but the edit has shifted the perspective so that the roof on the right side is now tilted. I know the original image looks a bit peculiar but it is perspective distortion as moondigger said - something that can't easily be perfectly corrected. You often end up robbing peter to pay paul, as in this case. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 added. – Outriggr § 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Edit 2 removed. – Outriggr  § 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Amazing picture but in thumb, it looses the details. but still very good. Don bertone 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 - Lovely photograph. doniv 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - can't decide on an edit - as usual Fir's has lovely vibrant colours but I suspect the original is closer to reality; they both look slightly tilted to me but the longer I look at them the less I can tell which is better... great image though --YFB ¿  01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - An absolutely astounding photograph! At first glance as a thumbnail the image looks like any other image taken of this Famous Landmark in London. Seeing the whole image at full size though took my breath away, and it takes a lot for me to say ‘wow’ with such sincerity! This picture should most certainly be featured on Wikipedia! User:Sean the Spook