This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paulnasca(talk | contribs) at 20:44, 19 March 2009(added the original version). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:44, 19 March 2009 by Paulnasca(talk | contribs)(added the original version)
Nom'ed in 2005. Currently does not meet the size requirements. In addition, the quality is not really up to par; note the quality of the grass, especially in the foreground.
Weak keep. FWIW it does meet the current size guidelines (and I don't regard that as a good reason to delist regardless). Apart from that, no it's not stunning, is unfortunately a bit cutoff at top, I can't imagine it would pass on today's standards, but it's not terrible either and has certain charms which appeal. This is the type of thing I can live with as an older FP. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Jron, it's still an appealing, encyclopedic and pretty good image which outweighs the reasons given to delist. Cat-five - talk06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's still a highly attractive photo that meets size requirements, even if it's towards the low end of quality now. That said, it's ripe for replacement with a new, better FP made with modern equipment (4 years is a long time in digital camera quality), but I don't see any reason to rush to remove it before then. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
