Currently a FPC on Commons, earning a lot of support there. Beautiful image, more attractive (in my view) than this earlier nom.
Proposed caption
The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famoustomb of the unknown soldier.
Support High resolution, very clear and detailed, very encyclopedic. Good composition (I like the Eiffel Tower and the tree leaves in the foreground). Perhaps a more detailed caption? --Malachirality22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Revised Caption: The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier. --84.90.46.116 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent detail and knockout composition between the lighting and Eiffel Tower. I don't know who the anon was but s/he suggested a superior caption.--HereToHelp23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although i would've prefered a version without the leaves, this picture is stunning. The sharpness is unbelievable, and it illustrates the subject well. --Aqwis15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I myself like the leaves, I think they add to the image by helping frame subject (the arch). --84.90.46.116 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the composition branches and all and the detail is Dilliffic! There is some fisheyeing but the image looks quite natural in the thumb, so I don't mind it. deBivort00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose I should take that 'Diliffic' as a compliment. :-) I wouldn't say there is fisheyeing (is there?), as it has been perspective corrected, but the verticals are not entirely vertical. Could do with a slight adjustment, but as you say, it looks quite natural in the thumbnail all the same. Detail is excellent, as is the shadow detail. Very good composition and exposure. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I chose to have the vertical lines converging a little, so it looks "less unnatural". The vertical anchor line is on the left edge of the right arch. I can change this if requested (?). Blieusong16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, its ok, I think it looks okay as is. I do appreciate that complete perspective correction results in excessive distortion sometimes. Its a tradeoff. I'm impressed by your photography by the way. We have a similar 'signature' style. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's because one copied the other, (hint: it's not you). Your pictures inspired me a lot, and you are certainly responsible for me spending a lot (time and money) in photography :). Blieusong20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Verticals look a little off as discussed above (I just get the feeling of a slight lean to the right), and I've said it before, but I think daytime shots have a higher encyclopaedic value; however these issues are compensated for by a good capture with sufficient light, and overall attractiveness of the image. --jjron08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would be "strong" if the leaves weren't in there. Besides being distracting they're also an odd colour and (obviously) out of focus. If they didn't occupy quite so much of the picture, I'd suggest removing them with PS; given the flat sky, the work would be fairly seamless. Still, an awesome picture. Matt Deres02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]