Comment: Could we please have the appropriate FOP tag, or at least a textual indication of the FOP/copyright issues involved with the building itself? (Happy to support once this has been seen to, though!) J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<shock> Well, my mother made a similar comment about seeing into the offices (though with less nudity). An effective 160mm will do that, alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco 1492, good to know. As this isn't Commons though, where would I find the note that DXR has mentioned? I cannot see anything on either the image page, the thumbnail, the full size picture or the talk page for either the image or the nom. Just curious to see what I missed to help spot them in future. gazhiley16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I don't really see a change. But it surely isn't a big deal given the resolution. There also appears to be a frame about three window rows below the top of the reflections that looks quite affected by CA. But that's a bit of nitpicking and I just randomly saw it. Still very nice overall. --DXR (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]