Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eleuterio Felice Foresti original.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Eleuterio Felice Foresti original.png, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2019 at 23:26:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by theodore dwight - uploaded by Sallustio21 in PDF format - restorated and nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose -- Google watermark -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternative version[edit]
Comment without signature and Google marks Ezarateesteban 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the first version is far below 2 Mpx, and the alternative is of very low quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ezarate: Please fix the source, the author, the date, and create a category for the author. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes please fix the source because in my view this alternative is just the first version upscaled. Which means the real size is below 2 Mpx, and this nomination should be FPXed. The blurry appearance with heavy lines is exactly what we get when a small image is upsized (here almost four times), then modified with strong filters. Actually this second version is even worse than the first one since many details have been lost in the process -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The first is extracted from PDF, and the second is upscaled to reach the minimum of 2Mpx Ezarateesteban 14:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but this is against the guidelines. Image size : "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information", and JPEG compression : "Do not save edited JPEGs with a significantly higher quality than the original—doing so increases an image's file size but not its quality". By upscaling the files, you don't gain in detail, you just cheat with the pixels. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The first is extracted from PDF, and the second is upscaled to reach the minimum of 2Mpx Ezarateesteban 14:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes please fix the source because in my view this alternative is just the first version upscaled. Which means the real size is below 2 Mpx, and this nomination should be FPXed. The blurry appearance with heavy lines is exactly what we get when a small image is upsized (here almost four times), then modified with strong filters. Actually this second version is even worse than the first one since many details have been lost in the process -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)- Oppose per Basile Morin (talk · contribs) - Piotr Bart (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: upscaled. Yann (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Confirmed results:
