Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Absinthe glass

Absinthe glass

 * Reason:Close up on a very clean, very encyclopedic, well centered picture.
 * Articles this image appears in:Absinthe, Absinthiana, Legal Drugs
 * Creator:User:Ari x


 * Support as nominator &mdash; ≈  The Haunted Angel  23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while the image does look nice, its a bit on the small side. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree, it is a bit small; I have however seen other pictures that are quite small (not sure if they are the same size as this, however), but I think that despite its size, it could make a nice featured pic.
 * Move to close nom Creator has stated this is the largest version. Pic does not meet FPC critera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravedave (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Yes, too small, even though I'm not sure what higher rez would add to the pic. Also, the cropping on the metal utensil is rather tight towards the bottom.--HereToHelp 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment--didn't this same image already fail a FPC nomination once?   Spikebrennan 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On Commons, I think, yes. It's a real shame, I like it. I really do wonder what a 50% bigger version would add to its appeal, even if there were one available. If it was up for delisting, rather than promotion, I would vote to keep. Getting your foot in the door is always the toughest part :o/ mikaultalk 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless the same image of larger resolution is provided. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 21:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunate because it's such a nice shot but 480px600p is about half of what is even minimally required for size and that's by my standards most people require a lot higher than even that. Cat-five - talk 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case I really should give my moral support. Just because a low res image isn't suitable for printing purposes or such, doesn't mean it would make a bad featured image. Featured status should be based on quality not size (quantity). I can easily imagine this on the main page. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've argued this point for ages, so I'm very much inclined to agree. As long as the FP criteria have no clause allowing for exceptionally good-looking images to be exempted from the resolution guidelines (the way historical/unique images are) then there's no hope for the absinthe-glass pics of this encyclopedia. I've started (yet) another discussion on the FP criteria talk page about this, but for those who don't make it there (and you are many) here's why I'm supporting this pic. Despite being of lower-than-acceptable size,


 * 1) It's very much suitable for print, being well lit and sharply focussed. Without upsampling (which it might stand) it would be 2x3 inches at 200dpi
 * 2) Although absinthe shots are quite reproducible, the spoon isn't so easy to come by. Hence it's very enc and reasonably unique
 * 3) As a picture, it has a certain quality, which I'm not going to waffle on about, but which sets it apart for the ordinary run-of-the-mill
 * 4) I like it a lot, and so do many other people, and
 * 5) Rules are rules, except when they're guidelines


 * mikaultalk 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments above. mikaultalk 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could overlook the picture being a bit small, but I can't overlook that, plus the slight cropping of the spoon, plus the artifacts seen in the background even at natural resolution (there's an irregular horizontal border in the sky where it's slightly purplish above and more blue-ish below). It's a good pic, but it's just not feature quality, IMO. Matt Deres 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)