Chicago Skyline 2 - Wikipedia (original) (raw)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason

Severe JPEG artifacting visible on many buildings. If the author uploads a less compressed version this nomination can be closed.

Nominator

Noclip

Delist — Noclip 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally Like this image, while it has some (minor) problems, I see no reason to delist. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you just wanted a less-compressed version, why didn't you just ask the author first before coming to the delist process? howcheng {chat} 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever flaws I can see, it's still a very high detailed photo, one of the better skylines we have, and most important is brilliantly encyclopedic for the article. And it's much better than the other Chi-town skyline FP (which is also up for delisting below. Poor Chi-town). --Bridgecross 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- addendum I would like to refer to the the original nomination; support for this image was unanimous. Also a reminder; it is good form to inform the original nominator/author when putting an image up for delisting.
Keep. Even if the detail on a specific building isn't great, having more or less all of the skyline together makes for a great pic...at hi rez...--Here T oHelp 17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The artifacts are pretty bad but the overall effect is what gives this pic its merit --⁪frothT 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the author of the image I of course would like to cast my vote to keep. It is a beautiful image and adds a significant contribution to the Chicago page. Every city with a skyline is proud of it and loves to show it off.
- Comment As to the JPEG artifacts: This image is 4mb, the image which is not compressed is massive. Even at 4mb it takes people with slower connections a significant amount of time to dl. Since this encyclopedia is for everyone I think featured pictures and pictures in general should not be too large to enjoy. I personally have this image printed out at 6'x9" and it is georgeous and there are NO artifacts visible so to say that the slightly compressed one has "Severe" is a gross overstatement.Buphoff 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  * Thanks! While you're at it, care to weigh in on the other Chicago skyline below, also up for delisting? --Bridgecross 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a joke? ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is clearly a satisfactory image for FP and I don't think it has any danger of being below current standards. While it does have flaws (mainly in sharpness and noise), they could easily be fixed by running some noise reduction and downsampling a bit and still be very high resolution. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't do better. --Arad 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]