Maybe the uploader has a higher resolution version (although at 750x1000, the pick satisfies WP:WIAFP suggested criterion). ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for uploading the hi-rez version, Aurbina. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great picture, but... compression artifacts (sky/head). I'll support a less compressed, preferably larger version. --Janke | Talk15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because a new, larger & better version has been uploaded! So, full Support, now, for the consensus version! --Janke | Talk08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Have done two edits to try to improve the shadows on the statues and remove some artefacting (which I think was still there in the sky). My personal preference is the cropped second edit, but support any. I love Moai. --jjron10:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Cropped image removed the partial shot of the rock? or another statue? Either way, it's a great image. bob rulz01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like the crop much, it makes the statue look like he has his nose up against some glass or something. It also brings out the space at the right hand side too much - the rock doesn't really bother me. Stevage17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version, weak support for the two edited versions. The contrast and colors in the original seem more lifelike, and although the two other versions bring out more detail in the face and the stone's surface, they just don't ring true. Kafziel12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support the first, colors seem less washed out. Very historical and good contrast (but really only in 1st). -OldMajor02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]