Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln Penny 2

2005-issue penny obverse

Reason: The original FP penny is facing a delist for its unauthentic cameo effect. This version is crisp and clear and though it's a little bright on Lincoln's head (maybe someone can touch up the color balance?) I think it's probably the best shot available. It seems to be lit from very close to vertical so there are minimal shadows. It's extremely detailed and high-resolution.
Articles this image appears in: Cent (United States coin) Lincoln cent
Creator: US Mint
Nominator: ⁪froth^{T C}

Support — ⁪froth^{T AMY WAS HERE!!!! C} 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, blurry, clearly artificial crop, doesn't meet size requirements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat - comply with the rules first, and i'll support 100%.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that we already have a penny that is featured picture but I believe that this one is better. I doesn't have the shadow on the right hand side, and it is a real spendable coin in the money circulation unlike the other one that is a collectable printed in San Francisco--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, too small, bad image quality, appears in no article. The is a reason for the last rule, the picture has to be peer reviewed by the people working on the article. Otherwise the photo-nerds keep promoting only pretty pictures ;-) --Dschwen 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's extremely detailed and high-resolution. this is a slight misrepresentation of the facts, isn't it? Its just 900x744 px. --Dschwen 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Dschwen -- Lycaon 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How much more resolution do you need on a coin, there's not much to show.. it's a picture of a 1-centimeter object --⁪froth^{T C} 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Froth alluded to, I measured a real penny at 0.75" and the picture at 7.5", meaning it's ten times as large as the real thing. That's good enough for me. Also, provided the consensus is that this photo is better, it will be placed in articles. You all are way too bureaucratic. Perhaps someone should just add it to an article to address that concern...--Here T oHelp 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fails criteria, 2,3, and 7.Meniscus 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any details on 3 and 7? Those are highly subjective --⁪froth^{T C} 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low. It may seem big but detail per pixel is low (ie. blurry), and also 1:1 macro shots can provide even more details. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Dschwen -- Madman 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For something incredibly common, it shouldn't be too hard to get a higher resolution. NauticaShad e s 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]