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

Water colored by iron

Not only is this picture to small, but it is also too blurry. If you look at the back row of trees, a large amount of JPEG artifacts can also be seen. No real detail can me made out, due to shallow depth-of-field (I assume - it could just be bad quality). Standards have changed since it was promoted.

Strong Delist. - Nauticashades 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --KFP 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a NASA image, you can often find a bigger version, as far as being blurry, thats sort of the point when you shoot waterfall images, most photographers slow the shutter speed down to blur the water to give it a pleasing effect. PPGMD 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but just look at the trees behind it: the quality is horrible. If someone can find a bigger version, please upload it. Nauticashades 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Doesn't meet resolution requirements, technical problems. -- Moondigger 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small, nice picture though, HighInBC 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist Too small, bad quality - I can easily see the lossy compression --WikiSlasher 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is one of my favorite pictures, I think it has good color, and cannot see any "blurs". AndonicO 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The color may be great, but the quality is more important. Aside from being very small, this picture's quality is horrible. Look at the back row of trees: barely nothing is discernable. It's just a blur of colors, not to mention the artifacts. Nauticashades 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Great shot, poor size and quality. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cool image, not a feature-quality image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Sadly i have to say delist it. Too small for FP requirements. Nice image though. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind stating why? NauticaShades^(talk) 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The picture meets my standards for a FP, sizewise it is big enough to illustrate an article (which is what we do here after all), and the minor fuzzyness in the trees in the back is fine by me, as the waterfall itself is displayed well. On a side note, I also feel that the FP standards by many editors are too high. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lets look at the critera:
      - Be of high quality: Failed. The quality is awful.
      - Be of a high resolution: Failed. 607 x 537 is nowhere near 1000 px.
      - Be Wikipedia's best work: Failed. Even non-featured images are better quality.

NauticaShades^(talk) 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]