Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png

Chicago skyline at sunset[edit]

Reason: Superseded by Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg. Note this was nominated once for delisting: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline delist.
Nominator: howcheng {chat}

Delist — howcheng {chat} 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. A good picture, but has been superseded and is no longer used in an article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I forgot all about delisting this, after the other was promoted. --Tewy 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I actually replaced this photo in every article it appeared in, with the new one. But then I felt it was not seemly to nominate it for removal myself. There is nothing wrong with having 2 FPs of the same subject (like hovery-flies or whatever they are) but the old one just doesn't meet our current standards. --Bridgecross 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the quality of the other picture is far better, IMO this one has a better composition, specially the sky. --Arad 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can perfectly put this back into, say, the Illinois article. No reason to have the same panorama in every Chicago-related article. The other one might win on technical merit, but this one wins on artistic impression. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we can use different skyline photos for various articles, and this is a nice photo. But if this were newly nominated today, folks would jump all over the out-of-focus buildings and dark lighting and other problems. --Bridgecross 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I'm certainly exhibiting status quo bias here. Also see the Long Beach image above. This one is leaps and bounds better than that one. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For one reason, this is a PNG image, not a JPG and thus does not have any compression artifacts by definition. howcheng {chat} 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure if that's not a jpg converted into a png. But you seem to consider compression artifacts a positive feature, judging from your responses. ~ trialsanderrors 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not the case at all, but I think too much focus has been placed on JPG artifacts when they only noticeable at full size and then only at the edges of structures. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. beautiful image. 68.61.233.160 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is, but it's not in any articles anymore, which is a one of the requirements for being a featured picture. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. If there is something better, it isn't "wikipedia's best work". say1988 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I think using alternate images on various pages is a great idea. Having several available shots for users to access on different pages adds meaningful content. However, this is a list for Featured Pictures and if images are grainy or if there are other better images available they should be used (e.g. several different pictures of the Lincoln penny)Buphoff 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]