Well, if you really want an opinion.....
From a stiching point of view, yes, they work, and from a "snapshot" point of view, also. But the only ones I find photographically interesting are the Orvietto and Venice shots, and even these are borderline. The problem is that they are all taken under harsh, uninteresting light, and they all lack a sense of foreground to background composition. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, it isn't meant to be, just constructive.
For the light, well you need to get up early or stay out late - not much choice there. And wide panoramas are difficult at these times due to low sun angle. For composition, this is one of the drawbacks of stitching. It is difficult to visualise and compose a shot when it is made up of several components. This is why dedicated panoramic cameras have a string edge over stitching. Personally I have done a lot of panoramic photography, using an XPan, and also a Lumix LX1, and I've also done a lot of stitching...but I've never considered any of the results good enough to show on my website.
One idea is to make a "virtual viewfinder" by cutting a rectangle at 16:9 (or whatever you like) ratio in a piece of thick card, and just carrying this around to help visualse what you will end up with. Maybe even take a reference single shot using this to mask the lens, as a guide for later stitching and cropping.
Sorry if this sounds cruel but at least I've just spent 20 mins looking and thinking, and I could have just ignored you or written "great photos tx 4 sharing"
---
E-System & other stuff...
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Photoblogography