Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg

El Castillo in Chichén Itzá

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 04:16:46 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality picture of a famous landmark.
Articles in which this image appears: El Castillo, Chichen Itza, Chichen Itza, List of Mesoamerican pyramids, Yucatán, History of Mexico, Earthquake engineering structures, Civil engineering, Structural engineering, Mexico, List of landmarks
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Daniel Schwen

Support as nominator --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this image presented at such a small size?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think this compares so favorably to the main image at Chichen Itza.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Small size ... are we talking about the same thing? Dschwen's image is not only much larger then the picture you refer to but is also of a much better quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing, since he's said the same thing on the gun nom above where it also doesn't apply, that he's talking about the size of the thumbnail in the nom (which was small until Muhammad changed it). --jjron (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality picture, great EV. Tony, as Alves says, this picture is of significantly higher quality than the main image at Chichen Itza. I have trouble understanding your view. Jujutacular ^T · C 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The clouds contrast with a brighter white and the trees are a brighter green in the other image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, but that's something that can be fixed. The lack of sharpness in the other photo can't be fixed. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The color balance looks off in the other image. --Dschwen 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for nominating. The image reproduces the sight pretty good. In particular the color balance looks a lot more natural, with clean daylight colors. That is how the pyramid looks like. --Dschwen 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW you know you shunted this existing FP from the Chicken article for your other pic? --jjron (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sure did. I gave it the shaft ;-). The new picture has more than twice the resolutuion and does not cut off the subject as much as the old one. Seemed like a no-brainer to me. I don't think an old FP-badge should get in the way of providing a new better image for the article. Or should we stop taking pictures of subjects that already have FPs? ;-) --Dschwen 15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but the general etiquette is not to bone existing FPs from their article-space - if people here that have some clues can't respect that, how can we expect folks with their digicam happy-snaps to do so? :-) Why not run it through a D&LR? --jjron (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not so much a question of etiquette, but of image quality. FPs should generally stay because they've been identified as highest quality. If a few years later a technically clearly better shot is available I do not see why we should jump through beurocratic hoops before improving the article. --Dschwen 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC) P.S.: what is a D&L? Delist & Laplace ;-) ? --Dschwen 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Dschwen is correct. No editor should ever hesitate to improve an article because of a featured picture award. If a better image comes along, replace the old one. Featured picture issues are always second priority to building the encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (Are you mocking my French ;-) - it was very late when I was writing that; D&R of course.) Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. FPs have been identified by the community as being high quality and valuable. To replace them in an article with a single editor's judgement that "my new photo is better" is misguided. Sure we want the best images in articles, but that's not just one person's decision, and FP/FPC is one of the few ways that we have of actually getting some sort of community consensus on which images are the best. Of course Dschwen has a clue about photos, but many editors that don't have a clue do the same thing. If your photo really is better than the current FP, why not come and prove it and gain the community support? --jjron (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it is a matter of judgment, and in this case it was the proper decision to replace. The objective is to improve the encyclopedia through better photojournalism. This is no different than revising text in an FA. It should be done with prudence but not shackles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This FP is also orphaned. NauticaShad es 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah, I thought there was one of this pyramid itself, but my quick search turned up the other one, so thought I must have remembered wrong. Wonder when this one went from the articles. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So really this nom should be a D&R as well? There's not really any new information provided, although it appears the pyramid may be collapsing under its own weight... --jjron (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply a good and great EV picture. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People participating in this debate may also be interested in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like its EV and setting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Technical quality, EV and composition all great. J Milburn (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg --Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]