this is to deep and meaningful for me hahahahaha

Sorry fogey I think there is a communication breakdown here. I thought you said ' what makes a picture' but you said 'what makes a picture. That's worlds apart.
Let's start by saying that I don't take pictures with you in mind. I'm not trying to please anyone or sell anything. So if a picture seems flat to you I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
You may have to be a bit more specific about 'make'. If it means has interest or beauty or relevance to the viewer or significance to the photographer or looks nice on the wall over the fire place each would need to be considered on their merits. I won't quote Barrett here but it might be worth having a look at his book 'criticizing photographs' or Adams essays in 'Beauty in photography'.
You original post IS a photograph. I would suggest you MADE the photograph by virtue of its presence with you post. What we make of it is something different and personal. I quite like it but that is irrelevant to any academic discourse, that's just a matter of taste. If you are suggesting the photograph has 'made' it in terms of some universal recognition as a fine piece of art you may have to ask the broker or curator. It may well make it as a post card or calendar. Or you may just leave it here for us to ponder.
If there is something equally universal you seek that will ensure we all like a photo you had better give $100 away with each print. That way you will be assured of a smile from the audience