Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monroe Street Bridge

Monroe Street Bridge
Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2014  at 01:09:58 (UTC)
 * Reason:High historic and encyclopedic value; the image was taken in 1911 of what would become the largest concrete deck arch bridge in the US and third longest in the world. Quality of the image, high resolution (3617 × 735 = 2,658,495) and very clean for a pic over 100 years old.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Monroe Street Bridge, arch bridge, falsework, Spokane, Washington
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:W. O. Reed


 * Support as nominator – G755648 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, the resolution on one side is under 1500 pixels, but that's the biggest the source has, and this image is impossible to retake. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- Per Crisco, the image falls below the generally required size but it has high EV and cannot be redone.-Godot13 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose A version 780 pixels high is available (the one with the black square around it), and, while the photo can't be redone, the scan could be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at that, despite my slow connection, and I'm not too sure the extra 50 pixels is worth the effort, or that it would be an extra 50 pixels after restoration work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think that settling is often a good way to prevent us from ever getting a better copy. People won't go the extra mile if we're so ready to accept "good enough".  Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were talking, say, 1250px I'd be all for it. But it's 50px. Even that would technically be "good enough" and well under the current minimum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should settle for either. The LoC do offer to make higher-resolution scans. They might charge for it, but I don't think "I'm not willing to pay" is a particularly good defense. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Fae is doing work with the LOC, actually. If that's still true, maybe we won't have to pay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * support  since I was asked to comment, I am inclined to side with Crisco's view - - Muhammad (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)