Original - View of Huayna Picchu towering above the ruins of a pre-Columbian Inca site Machu Picchu
Reason
High quality image which is used in many important articles. It shows the large subject fully and it is therefore an informative and technically very well done photo. It was not digitally manipulated and is under free license.
Support as nominator --Avala (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, shadows obscure detail. Very pretty though. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The size is according to FP criteria so it't can't be a reason to oppose I think. Shadows are a normal thing during the sunset and the part which has the heavy shadow presence is the mountain and there isn't any lost detail there due to shadows.--Avala (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Machu Picchu is still standing, a higher resolution photograph with better lighting can easily be produced. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well whether lighting is good or not is a subjective issue, this is s sunset photo so it's impossible not to have shadows and therefore there is no possibility for a new Sunset over Machu Picchu without shadows - only a bigger photo would be possible. And regarding the size, it fits the official size criteria so I am not sure but I think opposition on the ground it's too small is also too subjective. Still there is no rule which says "One FP per location", so it would be possible to have two or more FPs on Machu Picchu from various angles, times of the day, times of the year, size etc. but at this moment it's about this particular image.--Avala (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention it is a very pretty picture, all sunsets are beautiful after all. The encyclopaedic value would be in showing the site, not in showing how cool it looks at sunset. Regarding the size, I'm well aware that it meets the minumum requirement thank you. The site is also cropped a little bit on the sides and it shows more sky and mountain than it does ruins. Awesome shot, very cool, but for something that can be re-produced, it's just not a featured picture. I'm obviously in the minority, but this is just how I feel. Sorry. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless unsupportable. It's over 1000 px on one side, so it's FP eligible, right? Ignore this vote if I'm wrong! <:) It's a good picture though! Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is fully eligible according to FP criteria :) --Avala (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the size criteria, and the best on-wiki pic I've seen so far of this important location. DurovaCharge! 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best pic of Macchu Picchu I've seen here. How was it taken with no people? That almost makes me worry it's not PD. Clegs (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new Peruvian laws have limited the number of visitors to the sight.--Avala (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I see quite of few people at the image. They are hard to see because of a very, very low resolution, but they are there all right. I see a guy in a blue short around the middle of the picture and a big group of people at the upper left of the ruins. There are also some more.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the people are not an important feature of this photo. It's about Machu Picchu not tourists, one of the reasons why Peruvians have those laws anyway.--Avala (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I cannot agree that people are not important. To see the people at the images like those is important to me for better understanding the scale of the ruins.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uncle Bungle, for now. 1000px is a minimum, but that certainly doesn't mean size is no consideration as long as its over 1000. It's a very nice composition, but it doesn't have sufficient detail to merit FP status. I'm trying to contact the creator, who doesn't have a pro Flickr account but shoots with a 6 MP DSLR... she may have a higher resolution file she's willing to provide.--ragesoss (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That FP is a panorama. How is that relevant to this vote anyway? having a featured panorama of Machu Picchu doesn't exclude other candidates and is hardly a reason for the strong opposition, it's hardly a reason to oppose at all. But OK it's your right, I would just like to see a bit more constructive voting.--Avala (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what's wrong with comparing a high resolution panorama image with a very low resolution nominated image? The most important thing to me as to Wikipedia reader is to be able to see the details and I cannot see them at the nominated image. IMO my voting is very constructive, while your comment is not. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all every image is unique and there can be two FP of the same place. Secondly there are many FP which meet the minimum size criteria to the pixel like Image:Corncobs.jpg. All my comments are very constructive because they are based on "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." --Avala (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that there can be two (or even more) FP of the same place, and I absolutely agree that every image is unique, which does not mean that every image should be FP. I do not agree that the nominated image poses FP quality.It is way too small to see the details incluping people that I would have liked to see for the scale of the ruins.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one is good too, but I still like the current FP better because it is a high resolution panorama shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose looks very impressive in the thumbnail. But the detail is definitely much smaller than a crop of the current panoramic FP. Would support if higher res is available. --Base64 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too small, not enough detail. No wikilawyering about the 1000px limit please. This has to be decided on a case to case basis and size is not a yes/no criterion but contributes on a sliding scale. For this subject we have considerably better images already. This one is not one of the best. --Dschwen 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
