Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:TakakkawFalls2.jpg

Takakkaw Falls

Reason: Under current standards, this image is quite small at only 800x533 pixels. The image looks nice, but I don't really think it meets the requirements. If a similar, higher resolution image could be posted, that would be great.
Nominator: -KULSHRAX

Delist — -KULSHRAX 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist mainly due to size; the perspective's off too, though that's not a huge deal. --Peter 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Replace with Edit 1 Great shot - love the colours, both in the rainbow and the landscape --Fir0002 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNice picture--Mbz1 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Keep I probably wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC, but I don't think it should be deslisted based on the size alone. Otherwise it is a great photo. Cacophony 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought "I wouldn't vote for it on a new FPC" means it's not up to current FP standards, which is why FP's get delisted? Additionally, it seems that new FPC's get oppose votes based solely (or primarily at the very least) on low resolution; the wording in the criteria sounds pretty strict too, and I wouldn't classify this as an exception to that rule (e.g. historical). If it were higher resolution, or if resolution weren't a deal-breaker, I'd definitely say keep it. --Peter 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pretty lengthy discussion about this on the talk page awhile ago. Some argued that the standard should be "would it be promoted if it were nominated today". Others (myself included), don't really agree with that sentiment and think that images that were promoted a long time ago (when the standards were different) should have to fall considerably below the standards that exist today. Otherwise we are just going to rehash old points of contention over and over. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to vote to delist it just because it is a bit on the small size. Cacophony 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Nevermind, I looked at it again and it is more than a bit too small. The cloning errors that Debivort pointed out are another problem. Cacophony 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uniqueness of the shot would be impossible to achieve again so since we cant get any better lets stick with what we have. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this shot do you find impossible to duplicate? Mist rainbows aren't that uncommon. --Peter 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - size, and what looks like a bad cloning job on the left edge, where the waterfall hits the rocky slope. Debivort 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per Debivort; that clone job is horrible. I bet it was beautiful to see, but the picture itself isn't that great. Matt Deres 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per debivort- nice spot! Also the resolution is pretty terrible. It probably deserved FP at the time it was nominated but can you honestly say this is one of wikipedia's best images? --⁪froth^t 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes nice spot for the cloning error, but with a little more skilled cloning it can be fixed. See my edit --Fir0002 10:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still weak delist but in any case replace with fir's edit. I still have problems with the image, especially the totally-black shadows on the trees in the foreground and a weird compression halo between rock and sky --⁪froth^t 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Nice Composition and all... but its just too small... really..Yzmo ^talk 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if Replaced. The picture, while a nice composition, is quite small. If it is kept, it should definitely be replaced with the edit. --NauticaShad e s 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's big enough for my standards. -Henry W. Schmitt 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not our standards. MER-C 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a waterfall over a rainbow about it. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept but Replaced. --NauticaShad e s 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]