Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Port of Boston, 1876

Port of Boston, 1876

 * Reason:Early panorama of an important North American harbor. I ran this on peer review because of concerns about the height (it's plenty wide).  Responses were generally positive.  Restored version of Image:Boston Harbor 1876.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Port of Boston
 * Creator:Irving Underhill


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It's a very cool image, but between the small height, the limited palette, the fact that most of the detail falls within a narrow band and is hard to make out clearly, and the awkwardly cut off ship on the lower right, I think this has too many negatives for FP.--ragesoss (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in keeping with my comments on PPR. Shows good detail of the port, a variety of ships in the harbor, looks like the State House in the background, the Old North Church right-center, and the Bunker Hill monument on the right.  I don't like the warehouse roof getting in the way, but how many nineteenth century panoramas of Boston do we have?  I'm more forgiving of its faults. Fletcher (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because it's historic and with a lot of imagination, we can figure out what the buildings are in spite of their small resolution, doesn't mean this can get anywhere near FP status. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low resolution, can't tell what the buildings are, so basicly oppose per above. TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Good picture, but rather short, and hard to tell where the historical landmarks of the city are. Good picture, but not quite FP. Clegs (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope I didn't skew the discussion by pointing out several of the landmarks in the background. Durova can correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is supposed to be mainly encyclopedic with respect to the port not to the city as a whole, and I think it is very encyclopedic showing a historical image of the port.  By way of comparison New York Harbor doesn't have any nineteenth century photos, much less panoramas.  Fletcher (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it illustrating about the port? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This image appears at the history section of the port article. It depicts the ships, slips, warehouses, etc. of 1876.  As a photograph it provides a more reliable documentation than an artist's depiction (some artists add additional ships to harbor scenes to make a port look busier than it is) and panorama format provides a broader scope than ordinary photography.  This example is a few decades older than most of the archival panorama photography I've been able to locate, and this type of shot--specifically of the harbor, rather than a vista of the sea as seen from the city--is unusual.  It is unlikely we'll ever have a better depiction of Boston harbor of the 1870s.  Durova Charge! 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's one single ship that provides enough detail for me to get an idea of what it is, and it may actually be the most anachronistic ship in the image. That's the sailing ship on the very left of the picture. Everything else is just beyond recognisable. I think a map might do better if the layout of the harbour is the main interest. If the age of the photograph makes it notable, it should be added to an appropriate article with a new caption. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know of a location that would be more appropriate than the history section of the Port of Boston article, I'll gladly add it there too. Durova Charge! 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This example is a few decades older than most of the archival panorama photography It seemed like you were saying it was notable for being one of the first panorama photographs. Maybe I misunderstood you there. I think the other image differs in the level of detail. The ships are clearer, and the houses in the foreground have a lot more detail than the ones in the background in this picture (I assume the foreground elements in this nominee are roofs of something, although again, I don't know what of). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Well I wouldn't quite call 1876 a historic first for panorama photography, but it's much less common than 1900-1920.  I shared some of your concerns when I worked on this image, which is why I sent it through peer review.  Thank you very much for the comments about the San Francisco harbor; that was one of the most heavily damaged images I ever restored.  Durova Charge! 11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)