Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ferry loading.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Ferry loading.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2008 at 09:00:45
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Muhammad 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Latzel (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're supposed to give a reason for your vote. Muhammad 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do I? Allright: Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. --Latzel (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The picture above is more than 3mpx. Seriously, we need to teach people the difference between megabytes and megapixels. Muhammad 08:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Size matters?" Look at the compression artefacts and the perspective distortion. Focal length in 35 mm film under 28 mm? Seriously, we need to teach Muhammad about nice and good pictures, sorry, but you are persistent. --Latzel (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Where are the compression artefacts and the distortion? FWIW, nice and good have very little difference if any at all. Again, I ask you take back your comments about the size since the image is well above the requirements. Perspective distortion, artefacts are not related to mega pixels. Muhammad 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Size matters?" Look at the compression artefacts and the perspective distortion. Focal length in 35 mm film under 28 mm? Seriously, we need to teach Muhammad about nice and good pictures, sorry, but you are persistent. --Latzel (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The picture above is more than 3mpx. Seriously, we need to teach people the difference between megabytes and megapixels. Muhammad 08:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do I? Allright: Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. --Latzel (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're supposed to give a reason for your vote. Muhammad 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Size of image, nothing special, wow missing. --Karelj (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You got to be kidding me. Size of image? Muhammad 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so courageous to kid man as you. I mean - the resolution for FP should be minimum 2 Mpixels. Yours is 0,75 Mp. But this is not substantional. For me the missing wow is the main reason in this case. And do not be angry and try again. As me. --Karelj (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- 2717*1200 is more than 3 Mpixels in my book - !? --AlexanderKlink (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Info There is here a confusion between the number of pixels (3,26 Mpixels) and the size of the file (0.75 Mbytes). Only the first number is relevant for the guidelines. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK let´s forget size (even I think that 0,75 MBytes is important and is too low) but quality of this image is not good enough for FP anyway. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so courageous to kid man as you. I mean - the resolution for FP should be minimum 2 Mpixels. Yours is 0,75 Mp. But this is not substantional. For me the missing wow is the main reason in this case. And do not be angry and try again. As me. --Karelj (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You got to be kidding me. Size of image? Muhammad 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support (admittedly more as a protest vote against the previous opposes). --Aqwis (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
