Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Falco vespertinus NAUMANN.jpg

Image:Falco vespertinus NAUMANN.jpg, not delisted

Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)

•  Info Very low resolution: 800x1093. Nice, but not an exceptional image. Barely made it in the Original nomination with 7 support and 3 oppose back in 2005. Image description could be better as well by providing descriptions of sex and age of the birds to enable users to identify this from the plumage.
•  Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Bad--Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist For the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Good, old, solid drawing that I see no reason to delist. This is a featured image, not featured image description (and some biologist will fill it in sooner or later) and the resolution is fine and well by 2005 standards. Just because time moved on does not mean we have to upgrade resolution standards. Freedom to share (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Question What is the purpose of an image, where you do not know what is shown? A good image page is an important part of an FP. The image has been around for three years without any biologist stopping by to add a good description. it is not a deletion request. Merely a statement saying that this image is no longer considered to be the best Commons can offer. If someone cared to make a better scan of the original and provide athorough image description, I would have no objections in keeping it as an FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Same reasons. If tomorrow 10Mpx pictures were very easy too deal with, would we delist all former FP ? Delisting should be held only for obvious mistakes. --B.navez (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree with B.navez (resolution is enough) and Slaunger (this image can't be a FP without a more precise description).--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist - One the few cases I agree there was an obvious error of judgement, and not because of size. The quality of the scan is quite poor, the illustration is cropped and there seems to be artifacts in the image -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Info A related ongoing VIC review: Commons:Valued image candidates/Falco vespertinus.jpg -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist agree with Slaunger and Alvesgaspar --Simonizer (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep I think it is all good. Barabas (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Low resolution, pixelated. --Lošmi (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep - still good.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom. Lycaon (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)_{Voting period over. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)}
•  Delist artifacts visible --Base64 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)_{Voting period over. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)}

result: 6 Delist, 4 Keep, 1 Neutral -->not delisted --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)