Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sapporo Ice Building
Sweden and Canada have ice hotels, but each February Sapporo in Japan gets a small town sculpted from ice and snow. Quite beautiful and remarkable. This photograph is by Chris Spackman. - Solipsist 01:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 01:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice photo, but not feature-quality. If you have a higher resolution, I'd reconsider my vote. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely stunning. Support. - RedWordSmith 08:35, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Neutrality. Support if and only if higher resolution can be offered. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Nice, but I don't care for it myself, on purely subjective aesthetic grounds. -- GWO 12:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful piece of architecture. We won't use a higher resolution picture in the pedia, so I don't see the need for one. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:22, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I think people might be using two different meanings for 'resolution' here. If its a shorthand for the image size (eg. medium res), then it should be noted that at 763x534 its larger than the 'Wolf spider', 'Soda bubbles macro' and 'Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika' which are generally being supported. If resolution is being used in the more correct sense, that it is to say its not perfectly sharp, then I would tend to agree. In fact the original was probably over jpeg compressed. In any case the data embedded in the original jpeg suggest that photographer took a 1600x1200 picture and it was probably just compressed to minimise the image sizes on his web site. So if someone wants to follow the source links to ask for a larger version, both are probably solveable. -- Solipsist 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I also think that it has to do with the amount of detail in the subject of the picture. This building has etchings on the ice which are hard to make out at the current resolution. A picture of a bubble, however, would not be greatly improved beyond a much smaller size. Support higher res, neutral otherwise. --Aqua 07:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- A fine subject. Support if technical considerations can be dealt with. Denni☯ 02:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
- Support, I don't really understand the technical problems, doesn't seem any smaller than most featured images. In terms of the focus, it looks fine to me -- the only blurriness I can see is, to me, rather easily attributable to the fact that it is made out of ice (i.e. there are some features which are rather fine showing up, so I don't think it is necessarily a camera problem). But I could be wrong. I still think it looks pretty dang good. --Fastfission 23:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Support. Enochlau 20:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:22, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)