Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg

Chicago Skyline

I posted a poor version of this picture I took a month or so ago. This one is much better and I believe it to be a good candidate. This picture is the compilation of 9 images taken in early October from Adler Planetarium.

This picture appears in the Chicago Article. Created by Brian Uphoff 10/6/06.

Nominate and support. - Buphoff 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent panorama. Good colour and detail, the horizon looks level and the stitching looks pretty good to me (minor issues with some of the waves I think, but not particularly noticable unless you're looking for them). Good excyclopaedic image overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It always is ironic when a Wikipedian misspells "encyclopedic." ;-) --Tewy 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd misspell everything if I didn't spell check it...we didn't all pass the 5th grade.Buphoff 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is much better than the last one you nominated. | AndonicO Talk 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above.• Le on 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp, clear, good composition. VAST improvement. Adding more to the left of the Sears tower gives the viewer a better perspective. About time Chicago had it's skyline displayed in the same quality as my home town. Now you just need to nominate the other Chicago skyline for delisting. --Bridgecross 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good composition, nice pretty blue sky. Good choice of vantage points to take the picture. Did you use a tripod?Spikebrennan 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just a little more water would have benefitted the composition, IMO. --Janke | Talk 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. InvictaHOG 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent picture. I wonder if a little more water could make it even better. Alvesgaspar 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Midnight Rider 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one is a big improvement over the last one. NauticaShad e s 07:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! --Will Mak 050389 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A bit grainy, and any stitching errors are very minor, but this is a very nice, encyclopedic image. --Tewy 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great shot! - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks very good. - Darwinek 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult composition, good shot, depicts subject in a clear manner. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, fantastic picture. Nice colours, encyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very clearly showcases Chicago's landmarks and is very clear and large. Mrmaroon25 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very crisp and looks kind of cartoony but not, in a way. Jake Humbles 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It acts both as a good photo and a Chicago skyline exhibition. Zeitcatcher 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent photo, clear and very high resolution. --th e marble 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. A marvelous photo that is definitely worthy of featured status. Wikipediarul e s 2221 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quintessential Chicago, but still original. Awesome! Thor Rudebeck 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]