Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vancouver, BC dusk panorama

Vancouver, BC dusk panorama

 * Reason:A sharp, 9000 pixel wide panorama showing off the downtown buildings, bridges and stadium of Vancouver, BC at dusk against the mountain setting of the city with illuminated ski runs.
 * Note this is to replace the earlier withdrawn nomination with a third and better version to reduce confusion, please re-vote.


 * Articles this image appears in:Vancouver, BC
 * Creator:Mfield, Matthew Field


 * Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Absolutely stunning! Clegs (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A beaut Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Boring composition, jpeg artifacts, blown areas....tsk tsk :D victorrocha (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the link to your website necessary on the creator field ? I much see this as a form of "free" advertisement, and I believe it's not welcomed here. Blieusong (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was unintentional - I had copied/pasted the creator info from the image page when i created the nom. Now what do you think of the image ;-) Mfield (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a clear support :) (I would have supported any version of it). I do like it a lot and sometimes wish I live in north America so I can try to shot similar night cityscapes. Blieusong (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've taken a very impressive cityscape in Paris though. That sort of view would not be possible in almost any North American town! I'm quite jealous of you living in Paris to be honest! It is a far more photographic city than London is! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment :). I agree that it must be difficult to duplicate on other cities, as the montparnasse tower (from which was taken the panorama) stands far above the surrounding buildings. I also think Paris is a wonderful city for photography and... not so far from London by eurostar :) Why not visiting us (again) some times ? Blieusong (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have you remove the link by the way... I may be a little too paranoiac, but since Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites, some might be tempted to use it as an advertisement device, which is prohibited as far as I know. -- Blieusong (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think it's actually a problem. The GFDL is specifically designed to ensure that authors get credit for their work.  Providing a website address for ease of contact seems a perfectly natural and permissible part of that, provided that it's a personal website of the author and relates to the work it is attached to.  TSP (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support great. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support better than the ones here. -- Spencer T♦C 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Outstanding Fg2 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Per my reasons in the previous nom. Nautica Shad es  14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work - per reasons last time (good to see you managed to get rid of the banding) --Fir0002 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Quite the piece of work. Actually, stunning.  Great job. -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support because it would look better without those railings in the foreground. Picky, picky.  Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Really great light and exposure. A pitty that you downsampled it so much :-( --Dschwen 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)