Oppose I don't find the rendering very clear at the review size and personally, I dislike this kind of postcard-like photomontage to illustrate a town scope. As this can be a matter of taste, other reviewers' opinion welcome. --Myrabella (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant agree with your POV, postcards are made for this purpose, and if you check to other cities, mostly postcards are in Infoboxes - as valuad representing of town. But OK, let me see your nominee within scope. --Mile (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more objective remarks: the nominated image isn't fully described on the image page (criterion 4) : the source and description are incomplete (for example, are you the author of the image of the coat of arms of the city? If you are not, it's a derivative work of another file, which must be credited with its source and licence in the description) ; about the use in WP infoboxes: please note that the annotations are not displayed in most WPs; that weakens the information provided by this montage (furthermore, landscape format is generally more handy than portrait in infoboxes). --Myrabella (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info You can read who is author of work at line Source, where it writes Own work. So it deduct that I made them. Yes, even the Coat of arms, which can be easily seen if You would open it at full resolution, where there are no (to you) annoying notations. So if i check criteria 4 (information ; given (even contraditcs your whishes - more descriptions but no notations), who is author, how is made, with what camera, 2nd paragraph; all there, 3rd: irrelevant, not illustration). So...I can accept someone Oppose, but if that one can candidate some other valuable picture. I could understand voting against with no paralel nominee just in case photo would be realy bad. You dont do landscape stitch-up in case where you got so many portraits, you can check than on your own for other cities. New York, London, Belgrade etc. etc...actually, i havent seen landscape stitch-up in Infoboxes so far, so i dont get it how can be landscape more handy when noone does it (just if would be no-stitch). Your humble servant --Mile (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excuse me if my comment was harsh. Looking your image at full res, I better saw the COA => this remark is removed. However, I highly recommand to add the content of the annotations in the description in plain text. The reason is that the annotations are lost when one looks at the image in a WP. Exemple in the de:WP article : the file in de:WP hasn't annotations, so the reader can't know what are the buildings selected in the image (by the way, I find annotations very useful and I have supported this gadget on the Village Pump—but it such a pity it isn't implemented in most WPs.) Please check the categories too (criterion 6): there is a cat in red link, and Category:Montages of cities should be added. BTW here is an example of use of a non-portrait-format and documented montage. I remove my first oppose, because I am too short of time at the moment to explain why I find this kind of montage less illustrative than an image showing something of the geography and topography of a city (even a mediocre one). A selection of some sights will be necessarily incomplete and somewhat arbitrary: for exemple, this montage includes two elements about Margarethenkirche, but not the "usual" view of Schloss Friedenstein and none of the gothic Augustinerkirche, unless I am wrong, which has an article in :de:WP contrary to Margarethenkirche. --Myrabella (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Stuff done. Augustine church has some nice details, but outside looking is such such, not a landmark like Margaretenkirche. Also Friedesntein is depicted at Wasserkunst, that upper one is Marstall -my mistake. Saw Rome, it OK, since just tiny tower is in portrait mode. That pic of Gotha wouldnt be Valuable for me...bad IQ, no hightlits expect city centre view...who would now its Gotha. --Mile (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
