Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Hamilton, Bermuda 1911 and 2007

Hamilton, Bermuda 1911 and 2007

 * Reason:A corresponding pair of panoramas of the capital of Bermuda depicting the city and harbor from nearly the same location and vista 96 years apart.
 * Articles this image appears in:Hamilton, Bermuda
 * Creator:W.H. Wallace (1911), walknboston (2007)


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Very cool. Would we make this into a valued set? Loses some of its cool if it's not a pair. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be our first valued set. Why not?  Durova Charge! 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably the right thing to do... ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I definitly agree with the above statement. It should be a pair or it will lose its "cool"  Zoo Fari  18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The stitching is pretty bad on the flickr version distorting the geometry a lot (look at the wavy horizon) and the two don't line up in position or field of view very well. Landmarks are still visible in both though which does make the oppose weak. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I very much respect the opinions of Mr. NS, I think that VPC is here to offer extraordinary EV such that that while the image may not be a perfect panorama, the jist is given by a lower quality photo and meets the expectations and criteria of VPC. It's also not the exact same vantage point, but the idea gets across remarkably well for this pair of images. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Noodle snacks and the fact that the match between the photographs could be better. Presumably, the 1911 version was taken from the top of a building or height somewhat closer to the water. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There seems to be an IMO mistaken view that there are no technical standards at VPC. The 'new' one is sloppy, in particular that big downhill slope at right (unless this place has undergone a huge earthquake in the last century causing it to collapse to the right). And the images don't align very well at all, except for the island in the middle. FWIW the arrangement and alignment of the pair in the actual article is also poor. I would be far more inclined to support just the old version by itself. --jjron (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

--Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)