Wikipedia:Picture peer review/William Gibson
William Gibson by FredArmitage[edit]
Originally uploaded under an erroneous copyright license, this unique image of William Gibson was the subject of a barnstar-winning concerted salvation effort, shortly after which the article achieved GA status. In my subjective opinion, this image is one of the best depictions of living people on Wikipedia, and on this rationale deserve featured picture status despite its marginally limited size.
Comments:
- Unless you can find a bigger size I doubt there's much chance. At only 800 × 533 pixel it's well below requirements. Crop out all the excess black space (yes I know it's being used for artistic composition, but it's still telling us nothing about Gibson), and it's tiny. I will grant you it's a rather eyecatching portrait though. Bigger versions surely exist? --jjron 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to be the biggest size available. Is this unusually small for a photograph, in megapixel terms?
- Depends what you're looking at. For an illustration, it is fine, but FP guidelines specify a 1000 pixel minimum on one side of the photograph. Seeing as he's shooting with an 8 megapixel camera (3520 × 2344), there's a larger picture somewhere, but then again, there's the free licensing problem... thegreen J Are you green? 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see, thank you very much for your comments so far. So I would need to harrass the photographer further to 1) get a higher res image 2) abandon all claim to rights for the work, and in that event the picture would likely still fail for all the blank space? Skomorokh incite 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, if you want it to have a chance at FP, you will need a higher res image. It is very kind of the author to release this freely. I don't know about it failing for blank space; I think jjron was just saying that the useful part of the picture is even smaller than the 800 × 533, so it is likely that voters will want more than the bare minimum resolution. thegreen J Are you green? 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. I would estimate the biggest information size here (from top of head to neck) is about 400px. If you could get the image at twice this size, that would make 800px. Still under the 1000px minimum (even though the long side of the image would be 1600px). Personally I would probably support this image at that size due to its quality, but there are some pixel counters that may not (see the discussion about 3/4 way down on this FPC nom for example). --jjron 07:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you both for all your kind suggestions, this has been a most positive experience for a newcomer. I am not going to proceed with the nomination at this time simply because I haven't the time to pursue the photographer at present. I suspect also that this illustration was cropped from the original image and thus may not meet size requirements even at maximum rez. In any case, thank you both again. Skomorokh incite 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Thanks for putting the picture up here. --jjron 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you both for all your kind suggestions, this has been a most positive experience for a newcomer. I am not going to proceed with the nomination at this time simply because I haven't the time to pursue the photographer at present. I suspect also that this illustration was cropped from the original image and thus may not meet size requirements even at maximum rez. In any case, thank you both again. Skomorokh incite 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. I would estimate the biggest information size here (from top of head to neck) is about 400px. If you could get the image at twice this size, that would make 800px. Still under the 1000px minimum (even though the long side of the image would be 1600px). Personally I would probably support this image at that size due to its quality, but there are some pixel counters that may not (see the discussion about 3/4 way down on this FPC nom for example). --jjron 07:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, if you want it to have a chance at FP, you will need a higher res image. It is very kind of the author to release this freely. I don't know about it failing for blank space; I think jjron was just saying that the useful part of the picture is even smaller than the 800 × 533, so it is likely that voters will want more than the bare minimum resolution. thegreen J Are you green? 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see, thank you very much for your comments so far. So I would need to harrass the photographer further to 1) get a higher res image 2) abandon all claim to rights for the work, and in that event the picture would likely still fail for all the blank space? Skomorokh incite 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Depends what you're looking at. For an illustration, it is fine, but FP guidelines specify a 1000 pixel minimum on one side of the photograph. Seeing as he's shooting with an 8 megapixel camera (3520 × 2344), there's a larger picture somewhere, but then again, there's the free licensing problem... thegreen J Are you green? 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Seconder: