Comment I see a problem with criterion 3: At review size, the content is hard to make out because of the extreme aspect ratio. As a suggestion, I would cut off the left 25 percent (before the leftmost larger group sitting and the next one) and the right 15 percent (between the first and second groups of horses). In doing so, little is lost that can't be seen elsewhere in the image, and the aspect ratio is is larger so the image looks better at review size. Although, of course, it's totally understandable if you don't want to throw away information for the benefit of the aspect ratio. --MichaelBueker (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that due to the extreme aspect ratio we should try to be a little more flexible concerning what we see in review size. That it is not larger in review size is more a symptom of us not being capable of handling properly in our templates that in review size images ought to be seen with a fixed number of pixels. In panomode we assume some average aspect ratio is fulfilled, and in this case it is far of from the assumed average, but that should not be held against the nomination I think. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The size is not a problem to me, but I agree with Myrabella. IMO, the indians here (maybe cheyenne ?) look very "americanized" (clothing, hats, saddles for horses, carriages), and it does not illustrate well what could have been a "cheyenne tribe" IMO. I'm going to oppose, I think.--Jebulon (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
