Nominate and support. - South Philly 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the objects on the bottom are very distracting. should be taken at a different angle--Vircabutar 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious lack of contrast, wait for the sun to come out if possible - Adrian Pingstone 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per everyone else and also because of the all the grainyness.Imaninjapirate 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Handsome image, but it only illustrates the Cupola, not even an entire facade of the building. A shot that enabled the building to be recognized would be more encyclopedic. Something more like this.Spikebrennan 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is an excellent view of the cupola from the street level. It's what most people see from the street, and while it may be gray, it is not grainy.
I think it's better than shot2 shot2 --evrik 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It helps very little in illustrating the subject. I looks like any small-town church. And the wall on the bottom left is distracting or at least not well included in the composition of the image. --Dschwen 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The sky is distracting and depressing, the image though of good quality and in focus needs some work done on the lighting especially around that top spire which is obscured in white. Resetting its contrast may help.--WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. not a good photo, the weather doesnt suit the scence, the ?wall? at the bottom is distracting and it doesnt show the whole building Childzy(Talk|Contribs) 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
