Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Small Münsterländer

Small Münsterländer

Reason: It show the majestic pose usually recognized by small münsterländer, it gives question: What is he looking on? What is he waiting for? etc...
Proposed caption: The Small Munsterlander (SM) is a hunting-pointing-retrieving dog breed that reached its current form in the area around Münster, Germany. Small Munsterlanders are very intelligent, trainable, and attentive but require gentle and patient training, which provides excellent results.
Articles this image appears in: Small Münsterländer
Creator: commons:Caronna

Support as nominator _→AzaToth 14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great picture. It has a great background, the dog is striking a majestic pose, and the colors are awesome. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ineligible - not in an article. This is the version in the article. I like the dog, but besides the ineligibility, the washed out colours don't do it for me. --jjron 08:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - colour noise in the dog's fur, JPG artifacts everywhere, not used in any articles (although that can easily be changed, the first two can't). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. PNG? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the best image format ever concieved. LOSSLESS! --⁪ffroth 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's strange that a previous commenter complained of "jpeg artefacts". It does have a few visual distractions in its fur; it's difficult retrospectively to say conclusively whether they are present in the subject, but I'd prefer them not to be there. I believe we used to have a guideline that said that jpeg was most appropriate for photos. Has the guideline been changed? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a great photo for a few reasons, but opposing because it's a PNG is not valid. Please provide constructive criticism --Fir0002 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, which language would you like? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Umm I'd have thought English would have been the logical choice but if you have a better suggestion... --Fir0002 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably isn't a strong reason to oppose, but image use policy is pretty clear on preferred formats. PNG is a good replacement for GIF but no better than TIFFs for file size, lossless compression, etc. This one has clearly been a jpeg and later pointlessly converted to PNG. A net disadvantage, all things considered. --mikaul^talk 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Samsara: Not strange at all - it was probably saved as a JPG then converted (re-saved) to PNG. Artifacts aren't suddenly lost by saving in a different format - once the information is gone, it's gone forever. At the time of my vote, I didn't even realise it was PNG - another reason to oppose as per pschemp's reason below. It's not against the FP criteria, but it's against general image guidelines, which are a prerequisite for even considering the FP criteria anyway. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Guidelines clearly states "Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format." I think this combined with the artifacts and the dullness of the composition. pschemp | talk 14:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except JPEG is lossy, and stupid. The guidelines are wrong- PNG is farrrr rrrrrr rrrrrr superior --⁪ffroth 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]