Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amsterdam Canals - July 2006.jpg

I took this back in July and liked the result but didn't get around to nominating it until now. It is a 4 segment stitched panorama taken vertically. It is high resolution, detailed, and shows a very typical Amsterdam canal, with compact housing, road transportation and canal transportation all well represented. It is used as the lead image in the Amsterdam article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As usual, the quality is stunning. This is the kind of picture someone might post an oversaturated edit for, but let's hope they don't. NauticaShades 11:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I told you! NauticaShades 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Whenever you nominate one of your pictures, Diliff, you already know no one will oppose because they're PERFECT. |
  AndonicO 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Beautiful, very encyclopedic... brilliant. If I had one qualm it would be the clouds left by aeroplanes in the sky, but other than that... great photo. --Thelb⁴ 16:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry to be the one to say this. The photo is nearly flawless in regards to exposure, resolution, detail, etc. However, it just doesn't have the wow factor for me. It isn't that interesting or visually stunning. Therefore, I don't see it as a FP, even if it is executed well.--Andrew c 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Encyclopedic as well as a nice picture. --Midnight Rider 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wooooo I'm very impressed.. so much detail. How entertaining, I feel like I'm there. drumguy8800 C T 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 for saturation (and impressionistic appeal). The preceding was in jest. Support original. –Outriggr § 03:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thats what the canals looked like after sampling the local mushrooms (just kidding)! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm sorry, but I agree with Andrew c, thought the photo is technically very good, the subject doesn't have any resonance. If you could get a photo without so many cars (for example) that would make it less busy.
  lama 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's a city, I thought the cars juxtaposed against the boats were part of the charm. drumguy8800 C T 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus its an encyclopedia, aesthetical reasons for the choice of subject should not distort the view of reality too much. --Dschwen 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Andrew c. --James 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for the great quality and detail. The thumbnail doesn't make me go wow (which kind of can be read between the lines in
  WP:WIAFP). --Dschwen 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  chat} 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Plain composition. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Technically excellent picture. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there are just too many messy elements in this photo (the sky and cars for instance). It's not a pretty enough shot. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have said that the cars were part of reality and should therefore be included in the image. To suggest with the photo that the whole city of Amsterdam typically travels by boat would be very misleading. This image is a very typical canal scene demonstrating both means of transport. It might not be the stereotypically 'pretty' Venice canal shot, but Venice isn't Amsterdam. I suppose it depends what you want to show in an image. Pretty is all well and good, but it still has to add value to the article and removing important items because they are messy is unencyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]