Aehem. Please check out WP:WIAFP, inparticular the portion about image-size. Apart from that, neither does the picture illustrate the extraordinary length of the Lauberhorn ski run, nor the unique landscape it is embedded in. Furthermore the pic doesn't even have a caption in its article. --Dschwen17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, dude, the picture was uploaded on 16:41, 3 January 2007, so that means you nominated it even before uploading?! That's a new record for sure. Please take your time next time... --Dschwen17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible for FP therefore Oppose - please read the requirements before posting, it says it clearly enough in the instructions above. This picture is only 600x503 pixels, the minimum requirement is for the longest edge to be at least 1000px. You also state that it is a high quality pic - it is not, there is quite severe JPG artifacting around most of the defined edges in the pic. If you have a higher resolution picture without the artifacting problems, nominate it and I'm sure it will gain full support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [edit conflict] As noted, the image doesn't meet size requirements. Next it has a lot of visable jpg artifact. But most importantly, this image is Getty Image 56593272, which means it is clearly copyrighted. I am highly, highly suspicious of whoever marked this image as being in the public domain.--Andrew c17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - please read the requirements before posting, it says it clearly enough in the instructions above. This picture is only 600x503 pixels, the minimum requirement is for the longest edge to be at least 1000px. You also state that it is a high quality pic - it is not, there is quite severe JPG artifacting around most of the defined edges in the pic. If you have a higher resolution picture without the artifacting problems, nominate it and I'm sure it will gain full support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
