Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Kinzua Bridge

High resolution, couldn't find any noise or compression artifacts. I feel it is encylopedic.

Appears in:

Nominated by: Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While decent, I think this picture will be unsuccessful at FPC for several reasons. First, it is not of a high enough technical standard; even at full resolution, the picture is not sharp, and the standing portion of the bridge seems a tad underexposed. Secondly, the picture lacks encyclopedic value regarding its subject. I took a brief look at the article, and noted two things: first, the bridge was significant for its length (and/or was it height?) and also for the manner of its destruction. This picture does not illustrate particularly stunningly either of these two points. I can't really grasp a sense of the bridge's immense length/height due to the wreckage, and if illustrating the destruction, then the picture should include tornadoes, high winds, or the "4 or 5 oscillations before collapsing" described in the article. Just my opinion though, and thanks for your contributions. --Malachirality 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I'm just thinking, couldn't an underexposed part of the image be corrected in a digital photography editor, such as Photoshop? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]