Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Havasu Falls

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 15:49:57 (UTC)

Reason: Resolution is low, very pixelated and blurry. Don't think this meets our current standards for WP:FP
Articles this image appears in: List of waterfalls, List of waterfalls by type
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg
Nominator: « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @

Delist — « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Notified User:Moondigger here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, wow, it's far too low resolution to be featured. Mattximus (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, yes, agree with the above. --Janke | Talk 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Yann (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - A landscape/nature shot is not the sort of thing that should be on the edge of the minimum resolution threshold. From what I gather, the full resolution was not uploaded? (maybe I'm misreading). It's an interesting question about what should happen to FPs as time goes on. Will we always be replacing after 8-10 years as technology improves, or are we at a point now that, although quality will continue to improve, is an acceptable baseline? Don't know the answer. It's a nice pic, but I agree with the idea that FPs of such subjects should be higher resolution. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is that we will always improve and try to raise our standards. It's true for other featured material. Look back at WP:FAs, WP:FLs, etc, from 2008 or earlier and you can see how much we have improved with today's standards. What was featured quality 10 years ago is not featured quality today. Just my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 12:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]