Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/emperor gum moth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] emperor_gum_moth

Subject very blurred and portions of the image are blown out to an extreme. Also, grainy in the dead center of the photograph.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep taking into account the realities of depth and focus I can't see how it would be possible for the whole caterpillar to be in focus in such a shot, also I don't see the graininess though that could just be my vision going. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a good macro photo, quality macro photos are hard to get, and this is one, it should be a FP. PPGMD 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist since you guys (wikipedians) always complain about the overblown white area
• Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral There are problems with the photo (especially the blown out area), but the focus is very good. Maybe we should wait for another Emperor Gum Moth Caterpillar to become featured before we delist this one. Fir, I hope you go out this Spring and try again, your photography (and camera?) has improved since this photo. I'm sure you could get a better photo. --liquidGhoul 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If as see any I'll take them, the problem is the rarity of the event. --Fir0002 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. The problems are obvious. Another case in which it's valuable to the article but not FP material. I see no reason to keep it featured until another better image of the same caterpillar comes available - delisting does not mean deleting. -- moondigger 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per PPGMD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:16
• Delist. Even ignoring the SUPER blown background, there are blown highlights on the subject itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think we need to chill out on "blown highlights" -Ravedave 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blown areas in an image are almost always a major flaw, especially when they aren't just tiny specular highlights. More than 20% of the area of this photo is blown (estimated)... that's not something I think most would overlook if this image were nominated for FP status today. -- Moondigger 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This picture deserves its FP status. I've seen worse blown highlights in National Geographic. --Bagginz 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Moondigger's remarks above in the Wolfspider delisting page (concerning comparisons). -- AJ24 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I did, and I stand by my comment. BTW, did you tell Fir on his talk page that you nominated this to be delisted per the delisting guidelines? --Bagginz 07:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should take a closer look. You are basing your vote upon a comparison to National Geographic instead of FPCriteria. Concerning nominating notification, please see your User Discussion page. -- AJ24 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I am basing my vote on the sincere belief that, taken as a whole, aethetically and technically, this photograph is exemplary of the best of user contributions to Wikipedia and should be recognized as such. I am cognizant of the FP criteria. National Geographic is a magazine that has notably high standards for photography as well. The comparison to National Geographic is my murky way of saying that I won't use the FP criteria as a series of rigid and inflexible check-off boxes, any one of which can summarily dismiss otherwise deserving contributions. Regarding nomination stuff, kindly check your user page as well. --Bagginz 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 4 Delist, 1 Neutral, 7 Keep --Fir0002 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)