Oppose While it's a good image, I think that the most valuable image of Loch Ness would need to include Urquhart Castle, the most prominent landmark on its shores. As such, File:UrquhartCastle.jpg, (or File:Urquhart_castle.jpg, if cropped to remove the power lines) seem better choices. They aren't geocoded, but doing so to a high degree of accuracy should be fairly trivial. When were you in Scotland, by the way? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO all pictures including the castle (I mean, the ones we have) fail to show anything about the size and shape of the lake and, to a lesser extent, about its situation in the Glen. In short, the subject in these pictures is the castle, not the lake. Of course this pano only shows a portion of the lake (the northern end, not far from the castle), but it gives an idea about its linear shape and about the relief on each bank. It is true, though, that Urquhart castle (current VI) is the most significant landmark of the lake. I was in Scotland last summer, as you can guess from the image page (after correction, thank you). --Eusebius (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure. You are right that this shows things the Urquhart images don't, but, on the other hand, if we have to limit it to just one...
Now, you can't get the whole loch, obviously, due to its length... Hmm. But it does seem that there should be better images possible, from my memories. The best ones would be on the water, though that would be tricky shots to pull off. Failing that...
I don't know. This is a very typical Highland view, but maybe too typical: since there aren't many landmarks to orient with, there's a lot of lochs that this could b. Perhaps this would be better as a more generic scope?
Pity you aren't still in Scotland, though: There are very, very few people in Scotland active on Wikipedia, from what I can tell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
