Comment – It doesn't meet the 1500 pixel requirement of
FP criterion #2. Exceptions can be made for historical images, but Hollywood actors and actresses are well (often) photographed, so I doubt a convincing argument can be made for an exception. The image needs a bit of touchup to remove the ID in the lower right corner.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If 1500px is a hard limit, I guess this is an automatic fail. Should've read the criteria more closely. Suppose I could buy this from the Ebay page and scan it to a higher res … a bargain at US$18!
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!) 03:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The 1500px requirement is pretty firm, with occasional exceptions. I am not sure buying it and scanning it will guarantee the nom's success. There is no way to predict what the reviewers do at FP noms. And I have been around for a long time :-)
Bammesk (
talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Yet another promotional publicity image (with blown highlights). –
Sca (
talk) 13:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would definitely support a higher resolution.
Yann (
talk) 21:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – It doesn't meet the 1500 pixel requirement of
FP criterion #2. Exceptions can be made for historical images, but Hollywood actors and actresses are well (often) photographed, so I doubt a convincing argument can be made for an exception. The image needs a bit of touchup to remove the ID in the lower right corner.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If 1500px is a hard limit, I guess this is an automatic fail. Should've read the criteria more closely. Suppose I could buy this from the Ebay page and scan it to a higher res … a bargain at US$18!
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!) 03:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The 1500px requirement is pretty firm, with occasional exceptions. I am not sure buying it and scanning it will guarantee the nom's success. There is no way to predict what the reviewers do at FP noms. And I have been around for a long time :-)
Bammesk (
talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Yet another promotional publicity image (with blown highlights). –
Sca (
talk) 13:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would definitely support a higher resolution.
Yann (
talk) 21:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply