Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Colosseum at dusk

The Colosseum in Rome at dusk

The Colosseum in Rome, Italy was originally capable of seating 45,000–50,000 spectators and used for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles. Although it is now in a severely ruined condition due to damage caused by earthquakes and stone-robbers, the Colosseum has long been seen as an iconic symbol of Imperial Rome and is one of the finest surviving examples of Roman architecture.

Reason: This is a high quality and perspective corrected panoramic view of the Colosseum of Rome. While it isn't quite postcard perfect, this view at dusk provides the ideal lighting to see the three dimensional structure of the ruins.
Articles this image appears in: Rome, Colosseum, Roman architecture, Amphitheatre and New Seven Wonders of the World.
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks pretty amazing to me, well done Diliff (as always). Terri G 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not that it will need much :) Great work, timely capture, apart from the blurred fg figures and the UFO (exterme left)! Seems a tiny bit oversharpened on the high contrast margins... heheh, I love to nit-pick shots like this. Nice one. mikaul^talk 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very pleasing to the eye, and is important to articles! ♠Tom @s Bat 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Squisito! - Non solo deluso. --YFB ¿ 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is that line and two dots (or UFO, as Mikaul called it) on the left? J Are you green? 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a bird, is it a plane? It's a plane, I reckon: one constant light, one flashing light, one second exposure. Or something equally down-to-earth ;o) mikaul^talk 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect Mikaul is correct. You know what I think find interesting/amusing... You could safely remove the line from the image without violating the Wikipedia Photojournalism Code of Conduct because the plane doesn't actually show up in other overlapping frames. Therefore it wouldn't be manipulating reality to remove it (instead you'd merely be messing with quantum mechanics? Maybe both states exist until you observe or manipulate it....?!). In any case, I can't see how it is a significant issue in the photo. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just curious... Since it was actually there, I support. J Are you green? 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, despite "UFOs" and blurry tourists.--Here T oHelp 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perfect.--Svetovid 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Misa likes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs)
Support because of the four legged women where the outer wall ends at the ground. No, no, that's not what I meant. ;-) Support in spite of the blurry tourists. I looked over at Wikimedia, and this is by far the best one (I'm sure Diliff checked to make sure it was needed before he took it, but I agree, this really high res evening shot was needed). Enuja 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen many good pictures of the Colosseum, but this one outranks them all. --Krm500 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff mentioned something about a rome trip. I expect we'll see a few more featured pics coming out of that part of the world. -Fcb981 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, amazing image and the anomalies with the people really don't detract from its ability to represent the subject. gren グレン 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why doesn't anyone complain about the blown higlights? There are at least two half-inch sized overexposed patches in this slightly oversized image - I had to chop a hole in the side of my monitor to let the non-viewable part of the image load! And that :| in the sky just makes you frown... Seriously, I don't think anyone could do better. Big support for a great image! --Janke | Talk 07:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I love it as much as the next guy and the people don't distract me, but the blocky anomolies in the sky do. Perhaps someone can slightly downsample it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, what blocky anomalies? Maybe you could crop an enlarge them so we can see? I just had a scan through the sky and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...Unless you're talking about the plane discussed earlier? Downsampling wouldn't help that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are some sensor dust spots in the sky. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that Mgm is talking about some slight posterisation in the sky, which appears blocky in some places. J Are you green? 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bellissima! My Support is offered Booksworm Talk to me! 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, not that it seems necessary. One of Wikipedia's finest. Theonlyedge 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blieusong 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't get me wrong, it's a technically very impressive picture, but for encyclopedic value, I think that twilight is not the best time of day for a photo like this. There is not enough contrast between the sky and the building. A daylight photo or later-night photo would be better for this, in my opinion. A separate matter, not related to my vote, is that perhaps the description in the caption could be changed from "severely ruined condition" to just "ruined condition" -- given the age and the size of the building, it seems to me to be in remarkably good shape (but then I'm not an archaelogist). Spebudmak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support fantastic photo as usual. It would be nice if the sensor dust spots in the sky were cleaned however. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]