Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Alcatraz Island

Alcatraz Island

 * Reason:Highly visible blurry stitchings, visible jpeg artifacts. It has a bit low vertical resolution, though that's not a delist criteria.
 * Nominator: → Aza Toth


 * Delist &mdash; → Aza Toth 11:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. Someone in the bay area lean out their window with a cell phone and take a more detailed shot please. -- ⁪ffroth 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Going out there in a couple of months, I'll see if my cellphone can get a better shot :) Cat-five - talk 07:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - Per Froth. Should have much more quality. NyyDave (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Could someone point out the "Highly visible blurry stitchings"? In fact in the original promotion (less than a year ago) one voter even commented "This panorama is among the best stitching I have ever seen". --jjron (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue. Neither the creator (Miskatonic) nor the nominator (Jack) have been notified, as required at the top of this section in the big, bold writing. --jjron (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've notified the creator. Can someone explain to me the need to notify the nominator? --Malachirality (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Courtesy, and 2) a better version may be available. de Bivort 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Nominator also notified now. --Malachirality (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll note the nominator is an and/or. In other words the creator should be notified wherever possible, but for some images the creator may not be a Wikipedian (in which case you probably can't notify them), or they may have left the project, just as two possibilities - in these cases the nominator definitely should be notified. For some older images you may not reasonably be able to contact either, but that's not the case here. And as de Bivort says, it's really a matter of courtesy in the end anyway. --jjron (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Makes a lot of sense. --Malachirality (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having thought a bit more about this, unless someone can convince me of the flaws, I say keep. --jjron (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit highlighting the stitching errors. I can see some, but not in all the areas you point out. As far as I can tell they only affect the greenery, with a little bit on the rocks in the 'major' area, but most are pretty insignificant. I wouldn't exactly call them highly visible, though a restitch may not hurt. I still lean towards keep. --jjron (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per jjron. --Malachirality (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, for you who has trouble seeing the stitching errors, I've made one version highlighting some problem parts, the major one outlined even more.
 * Gosh, after looking at your highlighted version, I realized that I must not even know what a stitching error is. I guess I thought it was where images were joined to create a panoramic photograph, but now do you mean places where foliage is slightly blurry? It is windy in the bay. Anyway I voted below to keep until something better is found. S a u d a d e 7  11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're so much stitching errors, as that some frames in the stitch are slightly more blurry than others. Although it's most visible in the foliage, it's also visible on the rocks too (so it's not just the wind). I had to view 200% to see it. (I haven't voted either way). —Pengo 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even with the version highlighting the 'highly visible stitching errors' I'm having a hard time seeing them - this is with it at full resolution where I'm only seeing 1/3 of the picture at at time on a 21" monitor. NYTheaterHistorian (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am having trouble seeing any kind of stitching errors even on the 200 inch projector that I was looking at when I saw the delist notice. In fact I cannot see them at all. This picture was also picture of the day a few months ago. It gotten a lot of praise from a lot of people. Miskatonic (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Until Replacement is Found What's the point of delisting if nothing will take it's place? I'm sure there's some Bay Area Wikipedian who would be so kind as to take a higher resolution photo for us. -- Shark  face  217  05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone else see the writing on the wall about half way along, "Ning off"? Anyway, low quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm not sure what your point is about it. If you're implying it's a stitching error, I don't think it is. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Until something better is found. I never realized you could see the Campanile from Alcatraz!  S a u d a d e 7  11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The stitching problems are very small, I couldn't find them until they were highlighted, and still had a hard time seeing them after they were. this is a very good picture. Clegs (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Above. 8thstar 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist On account of massive compression errors and low resolution. It is should not be possible for an image this size to be less than a MB. [[Image:Alcatraz03182006-compression errors.jpg|thumb|200px|Compression Errors shown in white - jpeg block errors are colored lines]] Teque5 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Not sharp enough. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)