Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Petrified Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Petrified Wood

Petrified tree in Petrified Forest National Park, USA.
Petrified tree in Petrified Forest National Park, USA.
Reason
Quite frankly this image no longer has the image and techinal quality to be considered an FP. The lighting is harsh and I find that the item in the top right-hand corner is distracting. Composition is poor and it just doesn't seem to be an image that we can continue to consider as being featured
Nominator
Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala?
  • Delist — Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Suspend until creator (and optionally nominator since it's by a Wikipedian but wasn't a self-nom, though I think the nominator is long gone anyway) are notified about delist, as per clearly stated instructions. --jjron (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Notification done. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per reasons mentioned above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist no wow. Mangostar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist harsh lighting, not up to FP standards anymore. SpencerT♦C 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. It has a combination of flaws - composition, apparent sharpness (motion blur? shot without stabiliser?), DOF; lighting is not the greatest worry here. I also think that such a large mineral could and should be shot/uploaded at a higher resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral upon higher res version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do you see motion blur? And a stabilizer in the scorching dessert sun??!! --Dschwen 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There does appear to be some spherical aberration in the top left and (more so) in the top right hand sides of the image. I think that is what PLW was referring to. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Harsh lighting is a judgment call; the pic was obviously taken in full sunlight in a natural setting. Yes, it's bright, but the strength of the light is natural and helps reveal the detail and colour involved. I don't think what we're seeing here is motion blur, but mostly shallow DOF, which I don't think is terribly important given that the important depth is the depth that's in focus. Delist this one after we get a better one, IMO; it's not embarrassing itself against our other FPs. Matt Deres (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's ARIZONA. The light's going to be very bright and harsh by default. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the lighting is natural, i don't see it as an issue for de-listing --Kalyan (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Composition. Crop is too tight, angle leaves something to be desired. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • harsh lighting is a bad joke, this is the Arizona sun. *shakes head*. It is sharp and has little noise. I'd tend to agree with Matt Deres. You'd have to delist a hell of a lot more FPs if this goes down. Keep. --Dschwen 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I uploaded a new larger version. Which by the way purges and re-renders all resized versions, which look sharper now... --Dschwen 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe it wouldn't quite pass today, but maybe it would. Definitely isn't so flawed as to merit delisting.--ragesoss (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept --NauticaShades 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)