Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ireland-High-Cross.jpg delist

Ireland High Cross

Edit 1 New version by User:SG. Joined two images to create one similar to nominee, with JPEG artifacting reduced, larger image dimensions and some color/tone changes.

Edit 2 by Fir0002

The image does not meet the required conditions. It's too small and it does not have the wow factor. Most importantly, it has many pixelation (if you pay attention) around the cross. I'm not sure if they are Jpeg artifacts or not but it's not an FP material. Thank you Arad 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. As nominator Arad 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see Edit 2 and like it. So I would say: Repalce With Edit 2 Arad 20:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions - please notify the uploader of the image. If you check the image's history, you'll see that there is in fact a higher resolution, less compressed version. It was likely altered due to bandwidth concerns. --Davepape 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Wonderful and striking image, well composed, but too small and too many jpeg artifacts. HighInBC 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Very good photo; is "pleasing to the eye". The high res original has a slight cropping problem, though (which could potentially be fixed again). --Davepape 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a larger or better version then that one should be renominated. This one is too small. Arad 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the larger version can be found, it can just be uploaded over this version. No need to renominate the same image when the only difference is size. howch e ng {chat} 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if it's the same picture. I saw the larger version and the lighting is very different. Arad 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PPGMD 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GarrettRock 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep lovely picture, extremelly pleasing to the eye, slightly too small though. Michaeln36
Conditional Delist. If we cannot find a larger version this one has to go... I sure do like it though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- great angle, and a great picture, size may not be perfect, but a single factor shouldn't be cause to delist --T-rex 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets all criteria. --Ineffable3000 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEAE NOTE. The only factor for the nomination of this photo is not the size. There is a lot of Jpeg artifacts (or pixelation) around the edges of the cross. This image quality is far below the FP average. I agree the shot and angels are good but the quality is poor. Arad 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- I think this a really nice picture that captures the concept of the cross really well.Cyberdog 12:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough to keep, nice composition outweighs small size. We don't absolutely need to delist because we have a higher size requirement today. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist original or change FP to edit 2 — Ahh! Die, JPEG artifacts, die! Doesn't meet the minimum size requirement, either. Great shot, though. Shame we don't have a higher quality version. ♠ SG →Talk 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just uploaded a new version which I had to make myself, just as the nominated image was made: by joining two separate photographs (one had a guy standing in the middle). ♠ SG →Talk 09:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fir's edit 2 is great. ♠ SG →Talk 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist or change to new Old one is too small and has too many artifacts. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small. - Marmoulak 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Replace with new version; great work, SG.--ragesoss 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Original, Strong Replace With Edit 2. ~~I think that the larger version could do with a good edit, though.~~ Fir0002's edit is perfect, as it resembles the orginial greatly, but is from SG's large sized one. NauticaShades^(talk) 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support the edit but can't we fix the lighting to be more like the original? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, guys, despite the criticisms listed above, this image is already a featured picture and has run as the picture of the day twice, on June 18, 2004 and and April 29, 2005. So why is it being discussed here now? —Steve Summit (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunerstand. We are trying to remove it from Featured Picture status. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support replacing with Edit 2 only --Fir0002 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Replaced original with Edit 2 --Fir0002 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]