Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/tallest buildings

Worlds tallest buildings in 1884

 * Reason:Absolute top encyclopedicness, large resolution, historical value
 * Articles this image appears in:List of tallest buildings and structures in the world
 * Creator:George F. Cram


 * Support as nominator D\=&lt; (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Excellent image.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Beware  ofdog  18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the caption says "Old World" but the diagram includes the Wash. Monument. Chick Bowen 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question is that a rip in the top right corner? If so can it be reduced? It is quite obvious right now even on the thumbnail.D-rew (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like some type of water staining to me (i.e., this appears to have been scanned out of an old atlas, and it appears either this page or the atlas has been wet up there at some point). --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support dvd  rw  22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, great image but needs a better scan... also, a better caption. gren グレン 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * weak oppose I really like this idea, but this is supposed to be colour-coded and we really can't see them here. As a side issue, I'm also curious about the "Old World" title versus the inclusion of the Washington Monument. Was this done simply due to the then-recent completion of the tower or is there something else involved? Matt Deres (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Matt Deres and because many buildings are not distinguishable. H92110 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I like the subject matter, but I just don't see why we need to use an illustration from the 1800s to show it. This diagram itself is not historic as far as I can tell (it's just old), and a recent illustration could show exactly the same subject matter just as encyclopaedically, if not better given some of the other oppose reasons. If it was really nice quality its age probably wouldn't matter, but this is all rather dirty and grubby looking; indeed the original image quality itself doesn't appear to be great, for example some of the colours on buildings go outside their borders indicating poor printing. --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the image itself is very interesting, but according to the tint guide at the bottom, the colouring is apparently messed up. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)