Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swaledale Mother and Lamb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Swaledale Mother and Lamb

A Swaledale ewe with a young lamb. Most Swaledales have two lambs each.
A Swaledale ewe with a young lamb. Most Swaledales have two lambs each.
Reason
Wikipedia has been short on photos with a lot of artistic merit lately. I notice that this is the only one of Vaelta's that hasn't been nominated yet, so should be worth a shot.
Articles this image appears in
Swaledale and Swaledale (sheep)
Creator
Vaelta
  • Nominator — Benjamint 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy close I'm worried this isn't a good faith nomination, but the image is over sharpened with lots of detail missing in the blown whites. Debivort 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree get over Vaelta. There is no reason to bring up dead issues. -Fcb981 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say Vaelta is a dead issue yet... J Are you green? 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • All the more reason we should close a potentially sarcastic nom early. Debivort 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because of the really obvious pixel problems (they're quite clear around the ears of the little one and the horns of the big one). However, let's keep the discussion here limited to a discussion of the image itself rather than trying to read the creator's mind. If it weren't for the technical problems, I would support promoting this image. It's way better than this one, for example. Spikebrennan 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy close Can someone please close this obvious bad faith nom? mikaultalk 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - Obviously there is some previous story behind these comments. Anyone wants to clarify the problem with the user? - Alvesgaspar 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow! where have you been? Try here, here, and here for starts. Just read through Vaelta's contributions; the list is not that long, and it's definitely intriguing... J Are you green? 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - only just big enough, blown, oversharpened with colour fringing and blurry (cloned out?) areas. Not to mention that the neutrality and motive of the nominator and author are severely compromised. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. Judge the picture on its own merits, not on the basis of whether you like the author or nominator.Spikebrennan 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Uncivil personal attacks can be removed from discussions at any time. This nom probably qualifies as a personal attack. Debivort 03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good composition but very poor photographic quality: overexposed, blurry, very little detail and small. Alvesgaspar 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Questionable nominator motives aside this image fails on so many levels to meet the criteria for an FPC most of which have been mentioned above. Cat-five - talk 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Not promoted --Debivort 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)