Comment the 2007 POTY is low res, has odd colours and has been digitally altered. The 2007 POTY fails to show the tower in context. In particular that it sits high on the Cotswold escarpment. Of the others they either have perspective distorsion issues or are of really low resolution. The only one close in quality and context to this one is the current VI. Unfortunatly it is very low res and does have mild perspective distortion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There isn't current VI in this scope. The mentioned photograph is VI in the scope Folly (architecture). Anyway, it is very difficult indeed to choose the best in this scope.--MrPanyGoff21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MVR is open. I would also like to include the 2007 POTY and the Folly (architecture) VI, since they have previously be considered to be (for different reasons and in different way) excellent images, but I'm not sure how to do so since each has previously had a VI nom in the scope Folly (architecture). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I consider the scope "Folly (architecture)" is contentious. The scope "Broadway Tower" does not lend itself to confusion. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg seems to me the best. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info For your information: an image can be considered valued (and thus can be nominated) within more than one scope. This is illustrated on the main Commons:Valued images page. In the example, the same photograph is valued within the scopes The Kaaba and Tawaf.--Myrabella (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
