Info Naajaat is the smallest of nine settlements in the Municipality of Upernavik, in North-West Greenland. It is positioned in the middle of Upernavik Icefiord and has a population of less than 100 inhabitants. The blue building to the left is used as school, church and social events. There are no shops in the settlement. The main occupation is sealing and halibut fishing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Houston I have a problem. This is of course a very good image (but for the blown icebergs, it should be FP even), but how do I assess it at this (recommended) size? The houses are all but visible, while the scope is a village. All other criteria are also met. Should there be a special Valued Panoramic Image created? Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, I didn't notice it was on portrait. In that case Support of course, but the comment still stands for very long pano's. Lycaon (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Good point. First of all, I had made the obvious setup error to set the orientation to 'portrait', which rendered the image with a very small width. I have now changed that to landscape, which gives a better review size. However, it is still not optimal, as the number of displayed pixels in review size is still substantially smaller than the 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio more typically seen for ordinary images. I propose making the following adjustments:
Introduce support for a third orientation parameter value called 'panoramic', which displays the image with an even larger width, assuming a typical aspect ratio for a panoramic image and having the same number as pixels as for a 'normal' aspect ratio image.
As a last resort one could have the option to specify manually a width in pixels, if none of the orientation options works well for the nominated image. I think it would be overkill to introduce a separate class of valued images called Valued Panoramic Image. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure solution 1. should do the trick and indeed a separate class would be overkill, especially because on my first assessment I had assumed the image to be in landscape mode already and it looked really, really tiny ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have implemented support for a 'panorama' orientation (and updated this nomination accordingly) which renders the image in 800px wide, corresponding to std. 480x360px area at a panorama aspect ration of 1:4, which seem to be a typical value. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
