Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tulsa Panorama

1909 Tulsa Panorama[edit]

Reason: This is a wonderful photo that shows the amount of growth that the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma went through only two years after Oklahoma became a state. It is very fine quality with high resolution and illustrates the article, History of Tulsa, Oklahoma very well.
Articles this image appears in: History of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Creator: Clarence Jack, Library of Congress.

Support as nominator --CPacker (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent panorama, very sharp. --Chrome89 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good historic panorama. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Terrific quality for its age. Crassic! (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 Crassic! (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Oppose - wonderful scene, and it's great to see a panorama that's this old, but there's two major vertical stitching errors - the first roughly x=784 pixels from left, and the second at x=3122. Oppose until these are corrected. See below. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 - I closed up the gap and added Edit1. I will have a further examination and see if there's anything more to fix/repair and if so I will replace. Mfield (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the spots Vanderdecken mentioned. There are a few other extremely minor stitching problems too (eg. 1257px from left on edit 1), but they're bordering on imperceptible. Thegreenj 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed the other major stitch error too, replaced Edit 1 with new version. Mfield (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed another three, replaced it again. I am pretty certain I have got them all now. Mfield (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, change vote to Strong Support edit 1. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 No reason not to support this now. Thegreenj 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Sweet.--ragesoss (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. The image is quite encyclopedic, and Mfield did a good job fixing the errors. NauticaShad es 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Per above.--Fireaxe888 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment moved - it split Nautica's sig in half. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I crazy or does there still seem to be a tiny error at approximately x=3,8000 (guess) at the very bottom. Not a huge deal, I suppose, but it's still there. Crassic! (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see it, now you don't? Mfield (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ;) Crassic! (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 nice found, will do much good for the content illustration. M.K. (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 A good historic image. This pic was taken 99 years ago. My grandmother was born in 1909. And she is still living.（＾＾）／ Laitche (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. High encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Great panorama for this time. Spencer^T♦^C 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tulsa Panorama 1909 edit1.jpg MER-C 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]