Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joshua tree

Joshua tree

I found this on Wikimedia commons, and it is now on the article Joshua tree. I think the contrast between the silhouette of the joshua tree and the spectacular sunset make this a great pic. It says it is public domain.

Nominate and support. - Jon 23:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Very nice pic, but a bit small and there are thousands of jpeg compression artefacts in the sky, especially between the branches. It also looks like it has been enlarged beyond original dpi. Good subject though. If someone could take it again or something very similar it would be good, but that picture as it is isn't good enough. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 08:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, about the compression artifacts. Pity, the original contributer has left Wikipedia, or I would see if he has another copy. I really like the subject and composition. Is there any way to clean the current version up? Jon 01:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but with that many, and so obvious, it would be impossible to remove them. To get rid of them all, you'd have to blur the sky, and that would remove all the detail into a smudge. As a thumbnail it looks good, but the full size is too small and irreversibly compressed. Sorry! —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 10:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Nice, but as said above, too many artifacts. The thumbnail was really nice. --Vidarlo 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lovely picture ruined by its small size and insane level of artifacts. I'd happily support a high-res version. —DO'Neil 07:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, oppose. --Janke | Talk 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with previous - too small, bad jpeg artifacts. Diliff 15:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Enochlau 15:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Agree with Vanderdecken. --Fir0002 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose - As above JustinWick 01:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]