Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gracenotes (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 3 March 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

British Museum Reading Room Panorama

I think that this image is really admirable. It depicts one of the finest interior spaces available to the public in Great Britain. The photographer has captured the air of quiet, intellectual contemplation of the environment really well and in excellent detail. The image can be found on the British Museum Reading Room page and was taken by Diliff.

• Nominate and support. -  (aeropagitica)  01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff. Alr 02:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning! Awesome detail, excellent technical details with artistic sense. SteveHopson 04:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive. Nicely done. TomStar81 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yayyy--Deglr6328 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Stunning, fantastic work. --lightdarkness 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - amazing image--Shanel 06:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another awesome interior shot by the Wiki panorama master. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The small size on the right really doesn't do it justice (it's not going to end up like that on the front page, if it gets there, is it?). Other than that, lovely shot. --Fipe 09:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it could ever be featured on the front page 500 pixels wide ;), but I adjusted the size and centred it for this page. Panoramas aren't really suited to the usual thumbnail size, and since this is the the FPC page, I don't see the problem with any FPC pics being around 400 px wide on the preview. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support great image! Calderwood 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning. Neutrality 17:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support superlative. –Joke 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Hey, I have been there! - Darwinek 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work. Agateller 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Detail is remarkable, of course, but it'd be nice to get the window at the top of the dome in the photo. Going by this picture, that would probably distort the side walls at the edges of the image. But, of course, this picture distorts the benches in the center. It's a tradeoff. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great. - Eagle 07:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic. Andrew₁₈ 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either Version. Uploaded a brighter version. --Fir0002 www 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My support is for the original only. IMO, the second version is definitely too light. --Janke | Talk 14:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree. Once again I think the original is more accurate. Why do people always feel the need to make things look 'brighter'? I can see the point when detail is indistinguishable, but this is clearly not the situation... :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, awesome! :D = Mailer Diablo 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Whoa! Nice picture there! Uncke Herb 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Candide, or Optimism 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've been there, and this looks much better than I could ever get such an image. - Mgm| 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Original only, the brighter version is not an improvement. - Hahnchen 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. No need to brighten. - Mgm| 11:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent, support the original only. The brightened version lessens the impact of the rotunda ceiling.--Dakota ~ ° 18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Original image is better than "brightened" one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original. Very nice picture, gives you a good idea of what the place is like.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree, the original is a better picture.--Xiaphias 08:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - awesome! --Cyde Weys 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support brighter version. Awesome. Gracenotes § 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)