This seems to meet all the requirements of an FP except the side > 1000 pixels issue. I'm a bit confused whether this is suitable to be a FP as it's not by a wikipedian and is the subject of an article rather than illustrating an article, so thought I'd ask here. Bigger digger (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Sunbaker, Max Dupain & Culture of Australia
- Creator
- Max Dupain
- Suggested by
- Bigger digger (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- I don't think this would make it. An image being the subject of an article is fine, it usually suggests that it was chosen by an editor as the best image on the article, but this doesn't have a dimension above 1000px and according to the picture info the actual thing's over a square foot. --I'ḏ♥One 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- So the only potential problem is that it's possibly too small, not that it's a work of art? Bigger digger (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm telling you, I'm being nice compared to how harshly it would probably be criticized on FPC, and, let's be honest: It's a museum piece. Someone could go to the National Gallery of Australia and just take a larger high-quality photo of it. If FPC was going to pass an image this size there would need to be something very exceptional about it, and even then there's no guarantee because they might not think it has enough encyclopedic value. BTW there's actually a lot of disagreement with the current 1000px dimension requirement, a bunch of users want even bigger images. There's nothing stopping you from nominating this at FPC if you want to try, but I see almost no chance for it succeeding there personally. Could probably pass at Valued image since it seem to probably be the best image on the article's subject. --I'ḏ♥One 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries, I'm not bothered either way, the query came up at DYK as its article is being nominated — thought I'd use it as an opportunity to find out about the mysteries of FP. Thanks very much for your feedback. Bigger digger (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm telling you, I'm being nice compared to how harshly it would probably be criticized on FPC, and, let's be honest: It's a museum piece. Someone could go to the National Gallery of Australia and just take a larger high-quality photo of it. If FPC was going to pass an image this size there would need to be something very exceptional about it, and even then there's no guarantee because they might not think it has enough encyclopedic value. BTW there's actually a lot of disagreement with the current 1000px dimension requirement, a bunch of users want even bigger images. There's nothing stopping you from nominating this at FPC if you want to try, but I see almost no chance for it succeeding there personally. Could probably pass at Valued image since it seem to probably be the best image on the article's subject. --I'ḏ♥One 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- So the only potential problem is that it's possibly too small, not that it's a work of art? Bigger digger (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, too small given the dimensions of the photograph. If a better scan could be obtained, this would stand a good chance of passing. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seconder