Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg

Passchendaele aerial view

 * Reason:Durova mentioned that there were some WWI images that weren't up to snuff, so I looked, and found this. It really isn't feature worthy. High EV yes, but tiny, even by WWI standards, with quality issues. Especially if you consider that this is actually two images, this really should be delisted.
 * Previous nomination/s:If someone can find the original FPC nomination, please put it here.
 * The original nomination is here. Cowtowner (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And previous delist nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator: Nezzadar   [SPEAK]


 * Delist &mdash; Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  19:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I appreciate the sentiment here, I really do, but in my opinion, this should remain featured. It demonstrates an event that is entirely unreplaceable. Passchendaele as seen in the above picture is never going to be recreated, and the destruction in the below picture should hopefully never be reproduced. Aerial photography in 1917 was hugely limited, we didn't have NASA snapping wonderful photos yet I can forgive the quality on this front. I would hope a better scan could be found, but this is unlikely. Cowtowner (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aerial photography was more than half a century old by 1917. Examples from the 1860s are far better than this.  See Mostlyharmless's comments below.  Durova  369 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I echo the opinions of Cowtoner, essentially. However, I would be very open to someone visiting the imperial war museum and rescanning, however unlikely.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delist Encyclopdedic, but soft focus and very far below specs even if it were a single image rather than a composite. Also mismatched orientation, which would further detract from the dimension and filesize specs if corrected.  We simply don't have a feature-worthy image of this subject.  And the only reason this was ever promoted was because it was promoted when the FP program was very new (and availability/filesize was very different from current standards).  Severely lacking in every criterion except EV.  Durova  369 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A matched direction alternative is available. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Retaining strong delist as expressed above: which would further detract from the dimension and filesize specs if corrected. Starting a talk page thread about this.  Durova  369 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delist. My reasons have not changed: "There is no doubt that the events of Passchendaele were extremely important, and it would be wonderful to have a FP of the subject. This is a moving image, IMHO. However, the encyclopedic value of illustrating the destruction in this image is not particularly outstanding (it would be in the absence of other works), and the quality and size are well below what we accept, even taking into consideration the time and circumstances." Some things are important and interesting, but do not represent a high standard of visual illustration of that topic, even when the constraints on the producion of that image considered. They cannot be featured pictures. This is very clearly one of them. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I think it's a great image that has a lot of impact. If a better version comes along then we can replace it. -- Silversmith Hewwo 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This image is composed of two images that are approximately 250 by 335 pixels across. This is far far far below the standards of the field of aerial photography at the time. Compare with this image, taken in 1904. Aerial photography was 60 years old at in 1918. It was relatively well developed. What we have here is an ultra-low resolution web-copy of an actual photograph that is much much larger. It was simply an image found in 2004 when nobody had any idea about what a Featured Picture was. Voters now have no excuse for such ignorance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And when a better scan becomes available we can do a replace. -- Silversmith Hewwo 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Am doing an in-depth survey regarding the matter. Basically Silversmith's answer reflects a profound misunderstanding, and if that argument carries the day it may seriously hamper our site's growth and improvement in terms of access to premium quality digitized historic media and volunteers to restore it.  Yes, that's a bold assertion.  It comes from hard work and experience: two years ago when I began contributing to FPC this site had six featured pictures of World War I.  I have contributed fourteen more about this war.  In fact, the only FP promoted on this subject within the last two years that didn't have my name on the nomination was done by an editor I trained: I gave him the project and assisted him with parts of it.  Without this work our FP coverage of this war would have stagnated at 2004 quality levels.  The persistence of 2004 level material at the very top of the WWI gallery constitutes a significant barrier to progress, partly because Wikimedians have to be proactive and ask for access.  The failing WWI tank candidacy is symptomatic of our failure to maintain minimum quality control: technical specs of incoming material from new sources that are only a little better than the worst of our showcase, and good faith labor gets wasted on attempts to restore third-rate source files.  Durova  369 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe instead of just having a "delist" section to FPC, we should have a "needs better scan" section as well, because essentially you're saying that by just keeping these low-res images no-one is motivated to find better versions. As we can see from the Bison skull delist nomination, suddenly there is talk of obtaining a better version. My concern, which is why I said what I did about keeping this image, is that if it is delisted then we might just forget all about it. As long as it is there and in our faces as a low-res FP, perhaps someone is more likely to try getting a better version. If we had a page devoted to such images, people might suddenly decide their mission on here is to clear that page. And then we'd also have a talk page devoted to discussing attempts and giving suggestions etc. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 07:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Silversmith, I think you have missed the entire point of Featured Pictures. It is not for "good enough" work. "Until we get something good to replace it" is an argument that would sink like a lead balloon with a nomination. It is to showcase the best. What we have done in the past is to very consistently delist images like this one. If someone does get a featurable quality version, they can renominate the image. Unfortunately, that seems to have changed recently. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have voted to delist a few pictures recently, so I'm not just someone who wants to keep everything no matter what. I've also opposed recent nominations that I didn't think were great though others argued they had high historical value etc. I'm voting to keep this image because I like it just as it is. Yes, it would be better if we could obtain a better version, but I like this image more than a lot of current FP's that have exceptional quality which are as dull as dishwater. -- Silversmith Hewwo 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion, the EV for this image is so tremendous that it outweighs the size issue. For such a valuable image, I'm just content that the resolution is enough that it is possible make out what is depicted. As I said in the previous delist nomination, the actual image can be purchased for only ₤4.95. They offer an A5 300dpi JPEG via email. Surely that would meet the standard, no? Nautica Shad es  11:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. So this is the only image ever recorded of damage in World War One? Because you are saying that this image has extreme encyclopedic value (and so are the rest of the keep voters on this page). I don't believe you for one second that there are not other images that convey the destruction very well, and have infinitely higher quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like for example, most of the images in Second Battle of Passchendaele some of which could be featurable after restoration (I'm not suggesting Durova do it, she has more than enough on her plate). There is no comparison. They're all reasonable scans of original prints or from the National Archives of Canada. See Durova's comment above about the impact on Wikipedia of this and the other awful image that is likely to be kept for yet another reason why this should be delisted. I really want Wikipedia to have a Featured Picture of this battle (other than this, which should also be delisted, but won't be). What was then .16% of my country's male population were killed and .54% were casualties in a single day of fighting at the First Battle of Passchendaele. It has enormous significance to me. But Wikipedia deserves the best possible image as featured picture - and we can do that, if and only if there is a consensus to have high standards here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in the previous delist nomination, the actual image can be purchased for only ₤4.95. They offer an A5 300dpi JPEG via email. That is a very good suggestion if one wants to adopt a model where volunteers pay out of pocket for source material in an inappropriate format.  In a year and a half nobody has made use of that opportunity, including its proposer.  I have been striving to establish a baseline of 10MB in TIFF format for featured picture restorations.  That baseline is making progress with museum negotiations only because the negotiators are showing them my personal galleries rather than the site's official featured picture galleries.  This dilemma is very beneficial for me as an individual and I am likely to get another museum show in a European capital soon, but it isn't very good for Wikipedia.  Other Wikipedians who edit historic media aren't getting as much attention as they deserve and a window of opportunity for meaningful development in this area may close.  There are two schools of thought among volunteers who solicit institutional donations of historic media: quantity and quality.  The Bundesarchiv donation of 100,000 medium images included no high resolution material, and WMF Deutschland is not prioritizing requests for better files.  A vocal faction within the Israeli WMF volunteer comnmunity is ideologically opposed to the hosting of high resolution images and actively works to discourage its acquisition.  Most of the en:wiki FPC reviewers are out of touch with these factors and deaf to attempts at communication, and as a result I may accept opportunities that lead in other directions.  Durova  369 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist Noodle snacks (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)