Commons:Featured picture candidates/file:Warinerbeijing.jpg

file:Warinerbeijing.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2013 at 14:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jmex (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is less than 2 megapixels and very poor quality. --Joydeep _Talk 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

What do you mean by "poor quality" ? This image is a pure exclusivity of wp commons. You'll never find this action picture anywhere else, this is it's quality. And yes, it is not one of those insects or flowers on "close-up shoot". If it is just a question of pixels, i'll withdraw the proposal. Jmex (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2013 (CEST)

Comment Hello Jmex, thanks for uploading this photograph on Wikimedia Commons: it's a very good shot.
Unfortunately, it's just a problem of pixels. One of the requirements for a Featured Picture or a Quality Image is having at least 2 real megapixels of information. For further information you can read Commons:Why we need high resolution media. I hope I've helped. If you need something else, please do not hesitate to contact me. — TintoMeches, 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version with more than 2 megapixels

Info Thanks Tinto : i have uploaded the original picture here with all the informations and i think, the right number of pixels. OK like this ? Jmex (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2013 (CEST)
OK, the new version seems to meet all the requirements. Please, remind your vote must be clearly stated: so delete your previous vote by adding <del> before {{Support}} and </del> after that; then add a new vote down here. — TintoMeches, 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if the athletes are a bit blurred (I understand it's complex pic to take). — TintoMeches, 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jmex (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2013 (CEST)
Oppose It is a valuable picture. However, imho the quality (noise, unsharpness) does not qualify it for FP. Sorry! --P.Lindgren (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose higher shutter speed was necessary, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp at full resolution, very noisy, overall bad quality. We have featured sports photos like this, this and this all of which are moving action photos. --Joydeep _Talk 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, jpeg artifacts, tilted; per others. --Kadellar (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Stas1995 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]