Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phoenix1885-AerialMap HiRes.jpg

Aerial view of Phoenix, Arizona

 * Reason:A good quality lithograph.
 * Articles this image appears in:Phoenix, Arizona
 * Creator:C.J. Dyer


 * Support as nominator -- Beware  ofdog  22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support High enc, clear large file. A slice of history.  Durova Charge! 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose . It's not large relative to the level of detail in the original.  The small text at the bottom right is nearly illegible.--ragesoss (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Like ragesoss, I find the text excessively laborious to read at this resolution. It's an interesting image otherwise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear and informative. Neutralitytalk 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I share ragesoss's concern, but feel that this is just large enough. Unconditional support if a larger version is found. faithless   (speak)  01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Support No longer weakly. Great job finding the hi-res image.  faithless   (speak)  04:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I find this image superb, despite the unfortunate small text. smooth0707  (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A really interesting image and shows just how much Phoenix has changed. As others have said, could be higher resolution but it is sufficient to read. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a higher resolution version on the Library of Congress website here but it's in a weird MrSID file format.  I've downloaded a viewer from the LOC website here and converted it to a JPEG of about 3x the linear resolution (9904x6608).  I'll wait until off-peak to upload it though because it's a fairly hefty 60MB.  Time3000 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be able to compress it only slightly and see a significant reduction in size. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-06-16 20:17Z
 * You need to compress it: the upload limit is 20 MB. MER-C 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Highly enc. and historic and just enough detail to make text legible. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-06-16 20:16Z
 * Support UHR Per all above, and great (sic) detail --Mothmolevna (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support UHR I was neutral on the smaller sized image, which otherwise met all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support high-res version.--ragesoss (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Did nothing for me until the ultra high-res version. Nice job.  Makes it far more usable to readers, also.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support UHR. Incredibly large and detailed. Good job getting the UHR version uploaded. 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is, of course, great, but why leavve that ugly black border on the right, or all the stamps on the bottom? There's also a scratch in the upper left side, starting at the top of the circular sub-image, and going diagonally down and left from there. I'd fix it myself, but successively saving jpegs is... really a bad idea, so it'd be better if it was fixed from the original. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that cropping out the black border would remove information from the bottom of the imagee (as the border is not straight). Could someone perhaps clone in some "paper" onto the black border? Nautica Shad es  16:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support UHR Edit2 Mfield (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)