Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rt. Hon. Herb Grey Parkway construction

Rt. Hon. Herb Grey Parkway construction edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2014 at 09:49:53 (UTC)

Original – The photo shows the progress along a significant section of the new extension of Highway 401 through Windsor, Ontario and into Detroit, Michigan, named the Rt. Hon. Herb Grey Parkway. The project, the costliest highway project to date in Canada, will result in a new six lane freeway through what was a fully developed suburban corridor. It will feature several tunnels over which landscaped greenspace will be established.

Reason: I was recently given this image by the MTO to upload under a free licence, after waiting nearly a year since requesting it. Though it may not be the largest photo, it is large enough to showcase this massive construction project in Windsor, Ontario. This image adds a large amount of encyclopedic value to the featured article in which it is placed. The description and meta data will need some improvement, but that's an easy fix if there are suggestions regarding it.
Articles in which this image appears: Ontario Highway 401
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)

Support as nominator – Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, this is a brilliant image. No, this is not featureable. Nowhere near the minimum resolution. I'm actually from Windsor, so the next time I go home (probably not until December) I can see if I can get a better image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a watermark in there, too. Speedy close? 129.234.113.238 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think a speedy close is reasonable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no hard-and-fast minimum size requirement. Read: "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration." The watermark is a valid oppose reason, but I'll see if that can be removed because it is so faint that I didn't even see it until it was pointed out. As for getting a better image Crisco, I don't think a December image does any justice (will look like a pit of mud and snow) and I'm assuming you're coming home on a flight. This is the size of the image I've gotten, it is not realistically possible to obtain a larger version, and this is certainly a unique image since the project will be far advanced in a year from now. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FP? clearly states "Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height; larger sizes are generally preferred"; that is almost twice what you've got here. That exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis does not mean that they will be, and for a subject this large they really shouldn't be. There are also technical issues such as this being PNG (owing to issues with the MediaWiki software, photographs display better as JPGs) and the watermark. Now, I notice that you reverted the close of this nomination. Did you get permission for that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your argument that "it is not realistically possible to obtain a larger version" is untenable, as the original version of this image is clearly more than the 1,200 × 753 pixels they gave us. No EXIF data to back this up, but I'd be surprised if their actual original was less than 4k wide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think jpegs display better, you shouldn't be here. jpegs have artifacts when the software creates thumbnails of an image. This doesn't happen with png. As for reverting the "close", it was a non admin closure, so yes, I got permission from me, myself and I. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are desperately misinformed about both the MediaWiki software and the FPC process. I am perfectly aware of JPG artefacting and other compression artefacts. I simply said "owing to issues with the MediaWiki software, photographs display better as JPGs", meaning that the bug is with MediaWiki itself. If we're working with images to, say, edit them, PNG is better (or TIFF), owing to the lack of compression artefacts. For display on Wikipedia, JPG is much better supported (see Commons:File types for a more detailed discussion). Try making a JPG version of this image and displaying thumbnails side by side if you don't believe me: do they render the exact same?

As for the closure: closures at featured content nominations (including FPC) do not have to be conducted by admins, but simply one who has not yet become involved with the content (i.e. has not reviewed it, created it, or whatever). There were already two suggestions that this be closed speedily, which Armbrust acted on. You reverted a valid closure, and your reply here indicates that you don't realize that.

You did well to get them to donate this image; nobody is doubting that, even with the watermark. However, that does not mean that this meets the featured picture criteria. Unless they are willing to donate a higher resolution image without a watermark, there's little we can do other than take another photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This can be closed then I suppose, but I figured I had to make a case at least. However, while this picture has no issue in jpeg vs. png, I can point to an image that does - go check out the post I made many moons ago at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Jack Layton. Cheers - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, bellow the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]