Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elk Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Elk Fire[edit]

Deerfire.jpg - it has been suggested that they are not deer at all, but elk.

Too small, awful quality, does not illustrate Wikipedia's best work, possibly incorrect/misleading filename.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep other than the filename there is nothing wrong with the picture. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't you see all the artifacting? The blocky squares all over, and the bad quality? —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, Per Vanderdecken Imaninjapirate 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I was thinking about nominating this one myself. Appears to have been crudely upsampled, perhaps to meet FP resolution guidelines. -- moondigger 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Have any of you guys actually been in a wildfire? This is an amazing photo. --Fir0002 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not nominating it for deletion here, only to be taken out of featured status. Much as the subject may be stunning, the photo definitely is not. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist as per above. Dionyseus 06:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is a stunning image even if it is not perfect. Thue | talk 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Above. AJ24 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would this make any difference to any of the previous votes?Vanderdeckenξφ 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm... Why would it make a difference?? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:08
    • Haha you really want this photo delisted what next...... Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Seriously, what does that page say that would change opinions here? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:48
  • Keep. Excellent scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:06
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's good enough for a 2 page spread in Time Magazine as part of its "Photos of the Year" series [1], it's probably good enough for FP. Also, great example of Forest Service PD photos as a resource. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yesterday, I tried to see if I could find a better-quality version of the picture, but the one we have seems to be the original one (i.e. best quality). I admit that the quality is far from perfect, but the cicumstances in which the picture was taken must be taken into account. --Glaurung 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Cribananda 07:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Matthewcieplak. The quality is not exceptional, but the subject matter and composition should be enough to keep this as a featured picture. File quality is important, but it's not everything. Tokugawapants 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Joe I 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's very sad that an image like that could be somewhat beautiful--Vircabutar 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, another image (in my opinion) where the scene trumps the image quality issues. If we had any good alternative I'd be happy to delist. gren グレン 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, I think the quality is really too bad for FP standard. --Daĉjoпочта 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's a fantastic and awe-inspiring image... unfortunately the technical flaws make it unsuitable for FP status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. say1988 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep once in a many many lifetime shot. -Ravedave 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delist Incredible shot, very lucky to get. But it just did not turn out with the quality that is needed. Excellent subject, too much low light noise, and way too much compression artifacts. Pity. HighInBC 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a great shot. I'll see the burning forest through the technical trees. --Bagginz 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)