Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Dry Tortugas Lighthouse 2005.jpg

Dry Tortugas Light[edit]

Reason: Procedural: Part of a set of awkward promotions where a majority was inf avour of promoting, but problems were identified, and the consensus was overruled. If the consensus is for delisting - defined as strict 66% supermajority to delist - then the file will not be promoted, otherwise, it will be on closing of this nom.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dry Tortugas Light
Nominator: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Neutral — Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not FP quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Makeem, inappropriate to have promoted this. --Fir0002 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the obvious. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. These relistings are turning the project into a mockery. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jjron. wadester16 | Talk→ 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and as per oppose vote in original nomination. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on guys:
- Small file size given resolution - check
- Not sharp at full resolution - check
- Much of the picture is low-contrast - check (redeeming against the file size argument)
- Maximum image dimensions are 2 x what's required (redeeming against sharpness argument)
- So where are these artefacts, then? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep It seems that compression quality is 93 ("percent"), which should be plenty. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW I personally don't find the artifacts that bad either (they are there, probably worst around the treeline, but not enough for me to oppose on alone). There's a little noise, again not much I'd complain about. The main weaknesses I find are the poor sharpness and horizontal composition (could be improved with a crop). I didn't vote first time it was nommed because while I generally like the picture, I found the weaknesses overall too significant. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A question for you, as this was my first FP nom ever: once this vote has closed, would it be worth perhaps renominating the image? Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm willing to consider a crop if people think it would help the picture pass muster. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I start by apologising to you - this nomination has got caught up with a few others in a turmoil re FPC closures, which is a bit unfortunate and not something I would have liked to see. Re the picture, personally I think you'd have to get a higher res version of it, and edit off that. One issue is that now degradation is evident, further editing including a crop will exacerbate it. Unfortunately I don't think you're the creator, so perhaps finding a higher res version or the full res original won't be possible. If you could get a higher res/quality version I would be happy to help with the editing (depending on your own proficiency in this area of course). Otherwise, as I said above, I generally like the image, but found the quality of the current version a bit low. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words - no apologies necessary. (Though I've never nominated, I've followed WP:FPC on and off for quite a while - I know that this is something of an unusual circumstance. No worries. :-) ) I'm not sure if it would be possible to find an original, higher-res version of this image, but I'll do some digging. If I can find one we'll go from there.

Many thanks for your advice! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted I know I voted in this, but consensus is quite clear and we're coming on a month... --wadester 16 05:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]