Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Philadelphia Skyline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Philadelphia Skyline

This is the pinnacle of photography showing amazing artistic qualities. Sure, the maximum dimensions are very slightly less than the guideline of 1000px, but guidelines are guidelines and the photo is of peerless quality.

Image was taken by User:Emy111 for Philadelphia in August 2007 and was quickly used in many other articles such as Skyline.

• Nominated by: EgraS (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I like this and think this has real potential, but it needs a couple of things without which I'm not sure it'll be worth nominating for FP. First, it appears to be really sharp and well-exposed, but it really is too small to tell. For this kind of subject, where detail is v important, uploading a bigger version would improve its chances by 100%. The other points are less important but will be brought up on FPC without a doubt: it could definitely do with a v small clockwise rotation. Also a 10-15% crop from the bottom would work wonders and it could maybe do with a tiny red shift, as it looks a little "cold". All easy-done, minor stuff, except for the size issue. So.. what are the chances of a bigger version, d'you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIckStephenson (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 November 2007

• I messaged the uploader of the image about 2 months ago about that very same size issue (because I think it's FP material otherwise and was going to nom it originally), and have yet to hear even the slightest whisper as to what's going on. So, chances of getting a larger picture are slim-to-none. Could it still make FP with the size it is? EaglesFanInTampa 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You could try. The corrections I suggested would remove nit-picking objections, leaving it open only to opposes on the size issue, which don't technically disqualify it. Still, I can't help thinking it has a 50-50 chance at best, at this size. I do think it's worth giving the uploader one more go as I think it has great potential. If you still get no response I'll see what I can do about brushing up the existing one, if you like. --mikaul^talk 10:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder: