- Reason
- The most noticeable feature of the towers' shadows, meets requirements, shows the contrast of Burj Dubai's height to other towers in the city. (This could be replaced when Burj Dubai has completed construction.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Burj Dubai
- Creator
- Aheilner
- Support as nominator Rj1020 ( talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure what my opinion on it is yet. It is above minimum requirements but I feel like I want to see a bit more detail in it. Also, I don't think it would be necessary to replace it when it is finished, as I'm sure the construction of it is valid enough for its inclusion in the article and a FP. We don't really feature things that have a lifespan (evolution in minimum criteria notwithstanding), so it either is FP material or it isn't.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs)
10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- What nonsense - you can always ask for more detail, even if an image passes the minimum resolution requirement, since we're looking for the best images on the project. For a panorama of a city, detail is hardly an unreasonable request. Pstuart84 Talk 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can ask for more detail, who says we have to settle for this resolution? It's only barely over the requirements. Someone has to retake the same scene at a higher resolution, simple as. And tee bee haytch, Diliff can ask for anything he likes around here. ;) —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria is a guideline of minimum reasonable requirements. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to oppose it for any other reason just because it scrapes through. Ultimately we will make our own judgement based on the criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only appears in a gallery so I don't think it adds enough to the article. Guest9999 ( talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - interesting photo, but although it meets the requirements on size, it still doesn't display enough detail for the type of photo it is. Very few digital cameras shoot at such a low resolution as this - has it been downsampled? If so, can we see the original? It's had all its Exif data stripped, so I assume it's been put through Photoshop's Save for Web function or equivalent, to try to reduce the filesize. As such, it's easily possible it was downsampled beforehand. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. For a subject like this, a high res picture is needed. Clegs ( talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- The most noticeable feature of the towers' shadows, meets requirements, shows the contrast of Burj Dubai's height to other towers in the city. (This could be replaced when Burj Dubai has completed construction.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Burj Dubai
- Creator
- Aheilner
- Support as nominator Rj1020 ( talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure what my opinion on it is yet. It is above minimum requirements but I feel like I want to see a bit more detail in it. Also, I don't think it would be necessary to replace it when it is finished, as I'm sure the construction of it is valid enough for its inclusion in the article and a FP. We don't really feature things that have a lifespan (evolution in minimum criteria notwithstanding), so it either is FP material or it isn't.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs)
10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- What nonsense - you can always ask for more detail, even if an image passes the minimum resolution requirement, since we're looking for the best images on the project. For a panorama of a city, detail is hardly an unreasonable request. Pstuart84 Talk 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can ask for more detail, who says we have to settle for this resolution? It's only barely over the requirements. Someone has to retake the same scene at a higher resolution, simple as. And tee bee haytch, Diliff can ask for anything he likes around here. ;) —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria is a guideline of minimum reasonable requirements. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to oppose it for any other reason just because it scrapes through. Ultimately we will make our own judgement based on the criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only appears in a gallery so I don't think it adds enough to the article. Guest9999 ( talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - interesting photo, but although it meets the requirements on size, it still doesn't display enough detail for the type of photo it is. Very few digital cameras shoot at such a low resolution as this - has it been downsampled? If so, can we see the original? It's had all its Exif data stripped, so I assume it's been put through Photoshop's Save for Web function or equivalent, to try to reduce the filesize. As such, it's easily possible it was downsampled beforehand. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. For a subject like this, a high res picture is needed. Clegs ( talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)