Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pangong Lake

Pangong Lake




Too small, artifacting, bad quality, vignetting, inappropriate filename.

To outline some of the problems with the picture, I've added this extra one.


 * Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delist too small Ch ild zy  ( Talk 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Besides the problems already mentioned, it's oversharpened. -- moondigger 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. The image of Pangong lake is one of the best photographs in the featured pictures listing. Superb quality and imagery, balance, and view location. Instead of finding the best of what is already featured and attempting to delist them, you should find the worst of the candidates and make sure they are not accepted. Are alterior motives at stake?. AJ24 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But look at the waves nearest to the camera where they break, look at the top left corner - the quality is rubbish! I must contest 'superb quality and imagery', on those grounds at least. Look at the JPEG artifacting around the clouds. It's not even stunning! It's a lake, some large hills and a deep blue sky - I've been on this Earth only 15 years and I've seen better sights than that with my own eyes. How does it educate the viewer? I couldn't even tell what country that was in, or even what continent. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The quality is "rubbish"? Watch your language please.  Someone contributed that and to characterize aspects of it as "rubbish" is highly questionable.  Stick to your argument -- Samir    धर्म  06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The shaded areas of the photograph in no way diminish the subject, Pangong Lake. Also, I would like to remind you that under FPC we are to judge the photograph itself, not the medium. (Ref: "It's a lake, some large hills and a deep blue sky"). No photograph is perfect, but there are those that come extremely close to that point and they become featured pictures like the photo of Pangong Lake. Also, the image is linked to its article, with more than adequate information on the lake and it's history. -- AJ24 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Its horrible how many photos in the FP list are the worst things I have ever seen. How do I nominate a delisting for other photos in the FP status? -- AJ24 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per AJ24. -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't believe anybody would make the claim that this image represents superb quality and imagery. It's almost a textbook example of what can go wrong in an image. Contrast and saturation are pumped to blatantly unnatural levels, leaving the two most prominent clouds posterized and the sky an artificial shade of blue that doesn't resemble any sky I've ever seen in reality.  The border in the water between the shadowed area and the sunlit area is haloed due to overaggressive contrast/sharpening.  The oversharpening also gives the foreground water a crackled appearance, and contributes to the prominence of JPEG artifacts.  The vignetting is severe, blatantly visible even in a tiny thumbnail.  This image would be roundly criticized on any photographer's forum I've ever participated on. -- moondigger 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you there, if the photo was placed among a lineup of pulitzer prize winners, then im guessing it would be laughed at. But in comparison to the so many "FPC-wrong" photos in the Featured Pictures listings, and the cheap photos we review here, its a spectacle. Even though the actual location is obviously far better than the photograph, there is only one corner with a blackened edge (top left). The top right corner is partially shadowed, and as for the other two it is unnoticable and a natural shadowing. If you were trying to prove the point that the photo is not perfect, then you were successful... but if you were suggesting it be delisted, then you most certainly will not see the consensus needed to delist. Thank you. -- AJ24 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly wouldn't take a Pulitzer Prize photograph to put this one to shame. Besides all the problems I listed previously, portions of the clouds are totally blown out.  The vignetting you are trying to defend as "shadows" are nothing of the sort -- it's severe vignetting, probably caused by the use of stacked filters on the front of the lens or a lens shade too long for the lens used.  You didn't even try to defend the hideous oversaturation/oversharpening/excessive contrast.  This may not gather enough opposition to be delisted, but it should be.  How can anybody defend the fake colors in this image, much less all the other problems? -- moondigger 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is exactly like the image of the deer in wildfire that was also nominated for delisting, the rarety, significance, and beauty of the image overrides the unnoticable faults. Because at first I did thoroughly scrutinize the image and at first and second and third glance they are very unnoticable. Instead of automatically searching out for any and all errors in the image, you should judge the photograph for the sometimes intrinsic value that exists there. Furthermore, I do not see a consensus for delisting. Thank You. -- AJ24 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the wildfire image should be delisted as well, but didn't feel as strongly about it as I do about this one. The wildfire image is rare and significant -- this image is neither.  And it's far from beautiful in my opinion.  I am not giving this image any greater scrutiny than any other -- the faults are obvious and distracting to me.  By my count (see below) there are nine problems here, one or two of which were enough to sink several FP nominations in the time I've been here.  Surely nine problems is enough to delist this one.  As for consensus, at the moment this one is borderline. -- moondigger 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are currently four users who have voted to keep the image in FP status. Consequently, there is not a consensus to delist. It is not "borderline". Concerning the elk fire image, there are large white circles at the bottom of the picture, it is blurred, and in some parts grainy. While Pangong lake image has severe vignetting, the errors are no way near as obvious as the discretions on Elk Fire. I disagree with you when you say that you are not scrutinizing this image more than any other. As you have made many, many comments and even a diagram in hopes of delisting. None of which you exhibited in the Elk Fire image. Please do not say the image is not significant or historical, as it is a cultural icon of both Northern India and Tibet. Yours was an inapropriate comment. -- AJ24 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is well-established that we treat a 2/3 majority as consensus here, while taking the comments people make into account. At the moment the count is +3.5/-6, which is short of a 2/3 majority but very much 'borderline.'  Bringing up the faults with the wildfire image is irrelevant to this one... that one has a clear consensus (if we were to end voting now) to keep.  I have not scrutinized this image any more than any other.  I have made many comments because there have been many responses.  That is how discussion works.  I did NOT make a diagram of the faults -- that was made by somebody else.  I do not believe the image is significant because a better image of the same lake appears in the article, and it is not historical for obvious reasons -- it doesn't depict history.  Furthermore you act as if it would be impossible to obtain another, better image of Pangong Lake, which is clearly not the case.  There are Wikipedians contributing from all over the world.  Until a better image is uploaded, this one can remain in the article.  Regardless, it can be in the article without being featured. -- moondigger 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, concensus is not a majority vote, it depends upon the comments of those in the discussion. At the moment, I would say that it is borderline on the fact that nine problems have been pointed out. The reason this is not significant enough to ignore the problems, is that it is not impossible for others to photograph it. Pangong Tso has another picture on it, of much better quality, and even though it isn't FP quality, it proves that there is no need for promoting this image based soley upon its significance. Secondly, please read What is a featured picture?. It fails five criteria! It is not of high quality, as pointed out by many here. It is not of a high resolution, as it is below 1000px on any side. It is not Wikipedia's best work, compare with these landscape shots: 1, 2, and 3. Not to mention that it is also not Wikipedia's best work because there is a higher quality photo of the same lake in the article in which it is illustrating. Finally, it is not accurate, as the colours are not accurate. It is a pretty clear cut example of what doesn't make a featured picture. --liquidGhoul 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, anyone with eyes and access to a history page would see that I made the second image outlining the faults. I completely agree with everything that Moondigger and liquidGhoul have said on this page. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with everything moondigger says, it's extremely oversaturated with excessive vignetting (black, not darker.) I would strongly support keeping it if these attributes were fixed, but the fact that the corners are black makes me suspect that this isn't possible. -- Marumari 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Anything with vignetting like that should not be a FP, it makes it look terrible. Also, how can the top right be natural shadow? It is in the sky! AJ24, can you please give examples of the "FPC-wrong photos in the Featured Pictures listings" please? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Discussion Page. Thank you. -- AJ24 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delist too small--Vircabutar 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Small, oversaturated (looks like one of those picture you can see in a travel agent's brochure), severe vignetting, though this last point could be corrected by cropping the picture. Glaurung 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep despite the quality issues that have been pointed out unless you are looking at the image at 200% you won't even notice the issues, it is also still meets the criteria for an FPC. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The (1)fake color, (2)excessive contrast, (3)vignetting, (4)blown highlights, (5)posterization and (6)haloed border between shadow and sunlit water are all visible in in the tiny thumbnail on this page. The other problems -- (7)oversharpening ('crinkled' water) and (8)JPEG compression artifacts -- are clearly visible at 100% magnification. (200% is not required to see them.)  Not to mention that problems 1-6 are not only visible but prominent at 100%. Finally, it falls well short on the (9)resolution requirement, criterion #2 in the featured pictures criteria -- so I'm not sure how anybody could think it meets the requirements for FPC.-- moondigger 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on severity of several of thsese points and the effect that they have on the image's suitability as a featured picture, I have taken a second look at the picture looking for what you pointed out and though I do see what you mean I disagree on it being delisted, I have however changed to weak keep. Pegasus1138 Talk 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Commentfor the record image size is 800 x 536 px. Pegasus1138 Talk 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not enough problems to warrant delisting. --Fir0002 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nine isn't enough, including five that violate the FP criteria? That isn't the Fir that I remember from the past few months.  Don't let the controversy get to you... ;^) -- moondigger 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're damn right it's not. It's a seriously disguted Fir0002 --Fir0002 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Nobody has personally attacked you or anything. What are you disgusted about? --liquidGhoul 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a few people have made personal attacks on Fir recently, accusing him of ulterior motives. We're supposed to judge the image, not the person -- whether an FPC or a delist nomination.  People need to act like adults and not like vindictive children.  That sentiment applies to everybody, Fir included.  His support of this particular image now is odd given his opposition to it during the original FP candidacy. Whether he's been treated unfairly or not, he should be fair in his analyses and not vote simply to oppose people he's angry with. -- moondigger 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, but I was just asking out of concern, he seems pretty angry. I also suggest that you, Fir, take a short wikibreak. I feel that you are currently violating WP:POINT, and it is very out of character for you to do such. --liquidGhoul 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm hello? If this was some childish sulk don't you think I would be voting "delist" to oppose AJ24's position? Has no one else noticed this? But your advice LiquidGhoul is good, but I"m thinking more in terms of permanently leaving. This used to be such an enjoyable experience and community ... --Fir0002 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't leave. These things happen all the time, in that something occurs to upset people, and it blows up. It will return back to normal, and that's probably the best time for you to come back. Once these delistings have died, and the discussions have fizzled, FPC will be a better place again. --liquidGhoul 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... it just seemed odd that you would support an image now that you opposed when it was first nominated for FP status. I figured it was just a general reaction to the numerous delist nominations that came up, including some of your images. I'll back off now. Stick around... before long this place should return to some semblance of normality. -- moondigger 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you were one of the few that opposed the original nomination... You are (of course) welcome to change your mind, but I think you're letting the other delist nominations get to you. -- moondigger 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Take a comparable photo yourself or stop bickering. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For somebody to take a comparable photo they'd have to purposefully stack filters on the front of their lens and then go way overboard on the post-processing. I don't think that's the goal here. -- moondigger 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about Ghirla? --liquidGhoul 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think some of you are over-reacting about the quality. Rubbish? Far from beautiful? We can't be looking at the same picture. It may not be worth a million dollars, but this picture is still pretty nice. -- joturn e r 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am equally baffled that anybody could refer to it as "pretty nice." Seriously.  I have nothing against this photographer; I wasn't even around for the original FPC nomination. But from when I first saw the thumbnail I thought it was shoddy and fake looking. -- moondigger 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * @Moondigger - that's why I nominated it... —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shreshth91 -- Samir   धर्म  06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist because of vignetting, compression problems, resolution, graininess. It's not rubbish--it's actually rather fetching.  But it's a bad photograph and I think on this image that outweighs its charm. And... there are no ulterior motives.  Assume good faith and all that jazz.  This is FPC I came here to avoid confrontation.  Let's keep it a happy place full of nice images. gren グレン 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Paranoia. It's got to the point where I won't even upload a photo if I can find a blown-out highlight. Not good. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. The vignetting in the top-left ruins it for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - those faults are *petty*. The blown out highlights aren't a problem - they're small, and hidden in the middle of a cloud. The JPEG compression artefacts aren't a major problem. The vignetting is a question of style. I'm not a fan of the oversharpening, but really, this image isn't that bad. I don't like it, but it doesn't violate anything badly enough to be delisted. Stevage 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Phew, quite a fiesty response for this one. I do feel that, aside from the technical faults, it just isn't an outstanding photo. It isn't well framed and the subject, while pretty, isn't that outstanding. I do feel like if it were nominated now, it would fail. It seems like people are defending some of these pictures simply because they're already reached FPC rather than because they believe they deserve to be there. Just the vibe I get. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per AJ24 -- Lost 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delist. Going through the image in detail, I see the following:
 * The image was cropped from top and bottom, and possibly from left and right also.
 * The image was sharpened.
 * All these wouldn't have caused much problem if the editor has used a good quality editing software. All the errors pointed out, IMO, are a result of poor editing, which also reduced the resolution depth of the image. I am pretty sure if the editor crops the original image again (to remove the vignetting parts), the image would qualify for FP. Having said that, I find the image "stunning", which makes me weak. I wouldn't have found problems with it unless I wanted to find them. Finally, I don't think any FPC criteria mentions that the image should show what country it is in. Image can be renamed (by re-uploading). &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained - big arguments for either side = no hope of consensus. Raven4x4x 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)