Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt. Annapurna Jpg 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mt. Annapurna Jpg 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 09:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info Aerial view of Annapurna Massif consisting Annapurna II, Annapurna III, Annapurna IV, Machapuchare, Gangapurna and Annapurna South Mountains. created by Tsewang Lama - uploaded by Tsewang Lama - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Below 2MP, and white balance is off. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- The photo is not below 2MP, it is 3,110 by 1,687 pixels = 5.25Mpx. It is does however have some strange coloring, probably taken through a tinted airplane window. --Cart (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- true, my mistake, still not a FP, in my opinion due to white balance --PierreSelim (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- strong oppose I've had it with these downsized images. This is 2018 (image shot in 2017), the camera was able to shoot 5184×3456 pixels and we get only 3110×1687. It's a fairly "easy to take" nature format shot, so no cropping is necessary either. I cannot accept that this is "one of the finest images on Commons". Get it together, people.--Peulle (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I guess that as long as we have the 2 MPx minimum, people will think it's ok to nominate photos that are downsized as long as they stay well above that limit. Perhaps you should start a discussion about higher, say 5Mpx, limit. Seeing that many photos here lately that got the "too small" comment, it might be time. --Cart (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps a discussion about increasing the minimum guideline is warranted, sure, but what really gripes me is that some people think that images should be given a quality stamp as long as they are above the minimum. They don't seem to grasp what "minimum" means, and they don't seem to read the rest of the guidelines, for instance that images should not be downsized (there's a reason that guideline is there) and that reviewers may demand more from "easy to take" images. Also, this isn't even QI - it's FP, meaning we're looking for the best of the best, not just a picture that's above the minimum level required. Everyone should always post images of the highest quality they can. Some people don't seem to understand that. OK, end rant. I'll see about opening a discussion at a later date.--Peulle (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors are too dark and yellowish. Also some details are missing at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - May be encyclopedically valuable (i.e., perhaps a VI), but in addition to the above objections, the composition is good but not IMO great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile. I suspect the image was taken through the window of a commercial airliner, and the glass tint resulted in the yellowish WB. I'll admit that this could be easily corrected, but then there's the downsizing issue. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
