Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Passchendaele

Delist: Passchendaele
Voting period ends on 14 January 2015 at 00:01 UTC
 * Reason:While certainly striking at thumbnail resolution, this image completely lacks quality. 500 × 674 px resolution, and blurry even then, incredibly overprocessed - compare - and quite simply, not amongst Wikipedia's best images. It's time to delist it.
 * Articles this image appears in:Battle of Passchendaele, Second Battle of Passchendaele, etc.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004 Featured picture candidates/delist/Village of Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg
 * Nominator: Adam Cuerden (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the technical issues, I still find this high enough in EV, not to mention impossible to replace (unless I am proven otherwise), to keep sorry. You can still see the stark contrast between the two images demostrating the utter devistation to the village from the war. The fact that this town still exists to this day is incredible. gaz hiley  11:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We could replace it with the original from the IWM, we could replace it with another thing - but there is no inherent right for a bad image to be an FP just because it illustrates something interesting. Keeping this is saying that we will settle, that a really crap image does not deserve any attempt to find better - it's good enough. That's severely wrong and counterproductive, in my opinion. People, seeing a featured picture, stop looking for better. That's a major problem, and it's why we need to be a little ruthless about FPs from 2004, that wouldn't have any chance whatsoever at FPC in the last seven years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but until someone provides a better version I still stick to my opinion. I for one found this very interesting, and read the articles it is connected to, which is essence is what the FP process is about... And, as a side point, please don't use a red font to try and emphasise your opinion - I for one respect anyone's viewpoint, irrespective of colour of the font... It's unneccessary to use it... struck as red font now changed to black. gaz hiley  15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry: I decided you were right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist - Yeah, size isn't everything, but we've got two images in a file that doesn't even approach our minimum/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a great picture, with great EV, but maybe not quite a FP. Hafspajen (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delist Agree with the high EV, however the picture quality is very, very low. Those photographs were taken with higher resolution, even if they have been destroyed, I would suspect a better scan is available out there. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the current download version is like twice the size, yes there is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delist. I agree with the above. We can recognise that an image is valuable and striking without having to call it FP-worthy- this seems to be a case of that sort. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist - Even though EV is important for any FP, there are other facotrs such as image quality which are obviously lacking in this image - DUCK404 a (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - National Names 2000 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)