Support as nominator – The herald 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Below minimum size and rather soft. According to the file history the author already replaced the photo with a bigger one in order for it to qualify for FP, but the smallest edge is still 1329 pixels. It only falls short for a few pixels, but the photo also does not look as sharp as one would expect from a downsampled image. I will be happy to support if the author gives us at least the 1500 pixels we expect, but I would appreciate it more if we would get the full resolution version. --
Ebertakis (
talk) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A lovely photograph, but not up to today's standards.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose per J Milburn, it's a nice photo but does not meet the criteria.
///EuroCarGT 03:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I've reverted. Your edit introduced considerable JPG artefacting, and Commons policy is to not allow the overwriting of featured images. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – The herald 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Below minimum size and rather soft. According to the file history the author already replaced the photo with a bigger one in order for it to qualify for FP, but the smallest edge is still 1329 pixels. It only falls short for a few pixels, but the photo also does not look as sharp as one would expect from a downsampled image. I will be happy to support if the author gives us at least the 1500 pixels we expect, but I would appreciate it more if we would get the full resolution version. --
Ebertakis (
talk) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A lovely photograph, but not up to today's standards.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose per J Milburn, it's a nice photo but does not meet the criteria.
///EuroCarGT 03:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I've reverted. Your edit introduced considerable JPG artefacting, and Commons policy is to not allow the overwriting of featured images. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)reply